Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Deddens, 542 P.2d 1124.

64 citing documents.

Tyler Strang v. malay/hernandez Ariz. 2026
ADVANTAGE POOL v. MILES Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
ADVANTAGE POOL v. MILES Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
See State v. Serrato, __ Ariz. __, __, ¶ 19, (“Courts read statutes in harmony to avoid leaving any provision ‘superfluous, void, contradictory or insignificant.’”) ().
State of Arizona v. Edwardo Serrato III Ariz. 2025
State of Arizona v. Edwardo Serrato III Ariz. 2025
(noting that we avoid rendering statutory language “superfluous, void, contradictory or insignificant” (emphasis added)).
Karen Fann v. State of Arizona 493 P.3d 246 Ariz. 2021
Karen Fann v. State of Arizona 493 P.3d 246 Ariz. 2021
Premier Physicians Group, PLLC v. Navarro 377 P.3d 988 Ariz. 2016
Premier Physicians Group, PLLC v. Navarro 377 P.3d 988 Ariz. 2016
(“Statutes are to be given, whenever possible, such an effect that no clause, sentence or word is rendered superfluous, void, contradictory or insignificant.”).
Home v. Rothschild 253 P.3d 1242 Ariz. 2011
Home v. Rothschild 253 P.3d 1242 Ariz. 2011
¶5 “The Attorney General’s opinions are advisory only and are not binding on courts of law.” State v. Deddens, 112 Ariz. 425, 428
State v. Diaz 230 P.3d 705 Ariz. 2010
State v. Diaz 230 P.3d 705 Ariz. 2010
See, (citing cases); State v. Deddens, 112 Ariz. 425, 429
Jones v. Sterling 110 P.3d 1271 Ariz. 2005
Jones v. Sterling 110 P.3d 1271 Ariz. 2005
See, e.g., Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598 (1985); Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448 (1962); ¶¶ 78-79
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. 105 P.3d 1163 Ariz. 2005
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. 105 P.3d 1163 Ariz. 2005
Arizona State Democratic Party v. State 98 P.3d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Arizona State Democratic Party v. State 98 P.3d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
We note that the definition is to be applied “unless the context otherwise requires.” In making that determination, we consider that “[statutes are to be given, whenever possible, such an effect that no clause, sentence or word is rendered superfluous, void, contradictory or insignificant.”
Riepe v. Riepe 91 P.3d 312 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Pereyra 18 P.3d 146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Pereyra 18 P.3d 146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
McCandless v. United Southern Assurance Co. 953 P.2d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Distinguished McCandless v. United Southern Assurance Co. 953 P.2d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Vega v. Morris 905 P.2d 535 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Vega v. Morris 905 P.2d 535 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Colonial Life & Accident Insurance v. State 911 P.2d 539 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Colonial Life & Accident Insurance v. State 911 P.2d 539 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Opinions of the Attorney General are advisory only, , but if an executive office that administers a statute interprets it a certain way and acquiesces in that meaning for many years, the appellate courts will not disturb that interpretation unless it is manifestly erroneous.
State v. Moerman 895 P.2d 1018 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Moerman 895 P.2d 1018 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Green v. Osborne 758 P.2d 138 Ariz. 1988
Green v. Osborne 758 P.2d 138 Ariz. 1988
State v. Bridgeforth 750 P.2d 3 Ariz. 1988
State v. Bridgeforth 750 P.2d 3 Ariz. 1988
In City of *63 , this court observed that “the statute must be construed as a whole, effect being given, if possible, to all its provisions.” In so doing, “[t]his court will consider the context of the statute, the language used, the subject matter, the effects and consequences, and the spirit and purpose of the law.” , .
Prairie State Bank v. Internal Revenue Service 745 P.2d 966 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Prairie State Bank v. Internal Revenue Service 745 P.2d 966 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Fox v. Arizona Board of Pardons & Paroles 717 P.2d 476 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Fox v. Arizona Board of Pardons & Paroles 717 P.2d 476 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Gaddy, 24 Ariz.App.
Skyview Cooling Co. v. Indus. Com'n of Ariz. 691 P.2d 320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Skyview Cooling Co. v. Indus. Com'n of Ariz. 691 P.2d 320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
State v. Weible 688 P.2d 1005 Ariz. 1984
State v. Weible 688 P.2d 1005 Ariz. 1984
Marlar v. State 666 P.2d 504 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Marlar v. State 666 P.2d 504 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Thomas 642 P.2d 892 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Thomas 642 P.2d 892 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
a violation of ex post facto provisions of the United States and Arizona Constitutions.”
Continental Bank v. Arizona Department of Revenue 638 P.2d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Continental Bank v. Arizona Department of Revenue 638 P.2d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
State v. Walden 615 P.2d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
State v. Walden 615 P.2d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
is the authority of the state to retain jurisdiction over a prematurely released prisoner.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by