DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Curry, 398 P.2d 899.

29 citing documents.

  • Saban v. Ador 418 P.3d 1066 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Saban v. Ador 418 P.3d 1066 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    -95 (1965) (consulting decisions interpreting similar statutory 6 According to information provided by amicus Arizona Department of Transportation, the revenue sources of the Arizona Highway Fund for each year since 2000 have been "Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax Revenues," "Motor Vehicle Registration Fee Revenue
  • State v. CASTRONOVA 212 P.3d 887 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • State v. CASTRONOVA 212 P.3d 887 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    (“The words of the statute are to be given their ordinary meaning unless it appears from context or otherwise that a different sense was intended.”).
  • Padilla v. Industrial Commission 535 P.2d 634 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • State v. Babineaux 526 P.2d 1277 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
  • State v. Babineaux 526 P.2d 1277 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
  • State v. Jaramillo 522 P.2d 1079 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Jaramillo 522 P.2d 1079 Ariz. 1974
    appeal dismissed and cert.
  • State v. Osborn 494 P.2d 773 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. Osborn 494 P.2d 773 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
    State v. Farrell, 1 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Anderson 489 P.2d 722 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
  • State v. Anderson 489 P.2d 722 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
    2 The defendant’s , which held that one cannot be convicted for possession of marijuana seeds
  • Fountain v. Oelschlegel 451 P.2d 316 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
  • Fountain v. Oelschlegel 451 P.2d 316 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
  • Huerta v. Flood 447 P.2d 866 Ariz. 1968
  • Huerta v. Flood 447 P.2d 866 Ariz. 1968
    State v. Miller, supra; , .
  • Arizona State Tax Commission v. First Bank Building Corp. 429 P.2d 481 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
  • Arizona State Tax Commission v. First Bank Building Corp. 429 P.2d 481 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
    The words used are to he given their ordinary meaning unless it appears from the context or otherwise that a different sense was intended, , and when the construction of a revenue act is doubtful, a strict construction will be applied with due regard to legislative intent.
  • Hackin v. State 427 P.2d 910 Ariz. 1967
  • Hackin v. State 427 P.2d 910 Ariz. 1967
  • State v. Haddock 418 P.2d 577 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. Haddock 418 P.2d 577 Ariz. 1966
    § 36— 1001 through § 36-1105), which suggests that the word “marijuana”, as used above in the phrase, “or who knowingly possesses any marijuana”, was intended to have a meaning other than that normally assigned to the word, at 195 , at 901 , we quoted with approval the following statement from State v. Navaro, 83 Utah 6 , , in which the Supreme Court of Utah held that the word “marijuana” is ordinarily used to refer to the narcotic product of the marijuana plant: “While in some of the articles t
  • State v. Miller 413 P.2d 757 Ariz. 1966
  • State v. Miller 413 P.2d 757 Ariz. 1966
    Phoenix Title & , ; , ; , .
  • State v. Arroyo 406 P.2d 734 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Arroyo 406 P.2d 734 Ariz. 1965
  • State v. Farrell 399 P.2d 915 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
  • State v. Farrell 399 P.2d 915 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
    The validity of the law has been upheld by the Arizona Supreme Court