Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State Ex Rel. Purcell v. Superior Court, 535 P.2d 1299.
- North v. Vps Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-
North v. Vps
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Purcell v. Superior Court (Naylor), (defining trespass at common law as “any unauthorized physical presence on another’s property”) (citing 75 Am.
- State v. Davis 79 P.3d 64 Ariz. 2003
- Martin v. Reinstein 987 P.2d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
- Martin v. Reinstein 987 P.2d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
- Ruiz v. Hull 957 P.2d 984 Ariz. 1998
-
Ruiz v. Hull
957 P.2d 984
Ariz. 1998
see also Connally v. General Constr.
- Bird v. State 908 P.2d 12 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
- Bird v. State 908 P.2d 12 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
- State v. Padilla 817 P.2d 15 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
- State v. Padilla 817 P.2d 15 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
- In Re Pima County Juvenile Appeal No. 74802-2 790 P.2d 723 Ariz. 1990
-
In Re Pima County Juvenile Appeal No. 74802-2
790 P.2d 723
Ariz. 1990
(statute prohibiting loitering or prowling upon private property is not vague); , (statute prohibiting lewd and lascivious acts is not vague); Daniels v. State, 418 So.2d 185 (Ala.Cr.
- In re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Action No. 74802-2 781 P.2d 74 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
- In re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Action No. 74802-2 781 P.2d 74 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
- RANCH 57 v. City of Yuma 731 P.2d 113 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
- RANCH 57 v. City of Yuma 731 P.2d 113 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
- State v. Johnson 693 P.2d 973 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
- State v. Johnson 693 P.2d 973 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
- State v. Thompson 674 P.2d 895 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
- State v. Thompson 674 P.2d 895 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
- Seeley v. State 655 P.2d 803 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
- Seeley v. State 655 P.2d 803 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
- State v. Lycett 650 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
-
State v. Lycett
650 P.2d 487
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
the Arizona Supreme Court defined the difference between a claim of unconstitutional vagueness and unconstitutional overbreadth as follows: A statute is too vague when it fails to give fair notice of what it prohibits.
- State Ex Rel. Hamilton v. Superior Court 624 P.2d 862 Ariz. 1981
- State Ex Rel. Hamilton v. Superior Court 624 P.2d 862 Ariz. 1981
- State v. Sanders 575 P.2d 822 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
- State v. Sanders 575 P.2d 822 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
- State v. Sims 560 P.2d 810 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
- State v. Sims 560 P.2d 810 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977