Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Dupnik v. MacDougall, 664 P.2d 189.

46 citing documents.

Vangilder v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Vangilder v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
“[L]egislative history and historical background of an enacted statute provides guidance in ascertaining the intent of the legislature[, but] this principal has no application to proposed, but unenacted, legislation.” ( ) (emphasis in original).
Stambaugh v. Butler 379 P.3d 250 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Stambaugh v. Butler 379 P.3d 250 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
This is particularly true when, as here, the Department’s construction of the statute is “long continued,” , -29 , and when a contrary outcome would upset settled understandings, , (“Where there has been such a background of acquiescence in the meaning of a law unless manifestly erroneous, we will not disturb it.”); Bohannan v. Corp. Comm’n, , (“Uniform acquiescence of meaning, if it is not manifestly erroneous, will not be disturbe
State of Arizona v. Brady Whitman Jr. 301 P.3d 226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Brady Whitman Jr. 301 P.3d 226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
The purpose of this document is to provide “the evidence necessary to carry into execution any sentence” and to allow a sheriff “to require that the prisoner be accepted by the Department of Corrections.”
State v. Stocks 258 P.3d 208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Stocks 258 P.3d 208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
(sentencing statute vests superior court with authority to commit a prisoner to the Department of Corrections, but DOC, not the court, is vested with statutory authority under A.R.S.
Arpaio v. Steinle 35 P.3d 114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Arpaio v. Steinle 35 P.3d 114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
In Re Abraham F. 947 P.2d 1368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
In Re Abraham F. 947 P.2d 1368 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
This court also may consider the historical background of a statute to “shed light on its meaning and intent.”
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
Cactus Wren Partners v. Arizona Department of Building & Fire Safety 869 P.2d 1212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Cactus Wren Partners v. Arizona Department of Building & Fire Safety 869 P.2d 1212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Rowan 848 P.2d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
State v. Rowan 848 P.2d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Goode v. Alfred 828 P.2d 1235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Goode v. Alfred 828 P.2d 1235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
State v. Takacs 819 P.2d 978 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Takacs 819 P.2d 978 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Rascon v. Transamerica Financial Corp. 812 P.2d 1019 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Rascon v. Transamerica Financial Corp. 812 P.2d 1019 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
(court may look to historical background of statute to shed light on its meaning and intent).
State v. Wagstaff 794 P.2d 118 Ariz. 1990
State v. Wagstaff 794 P.2d 118 Ariz. 1990
*489 (discussing Department of Corrections authority); , (discussing distribution of authority).
City of Flagstaff v. Mangum 793 P.2d 548 Ariz. 1990
City of Flagstaff v. Mangum 793 P.2d 548 Ariz. 1990
State v. Altamirano 803 P.2d 425 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Altamirano 803 P.2d 425 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Mohave County v. City of Kingman 774 P.2d 806 Ariz. 1989
Mohave County v. City of Kingman 774 P.2d 806 Ariz. 1989
State v. Moore 754 P.2d 293 Ariz. 1988
State v. Moore 754 P.2d 293 Ariz. 1988
§§ 13-701, 31201.01 and 41-1604(A)(2)
State v. Rodriguez 735 P.2d 792 Ariz. 1987
State v. Rodriguez 735 P.2d 792 Ariz. 1987
This rule of construction applies even where the statutes were enacted at different times, and contain no reference one to the other____ Sweet, 143 Ariz. at 270-71 , 693 P.2d at 925-26
Large v. Superior Court 714 P.2d 399 Ariz. 1986
Large v. Superior Court 714 P.2d 399 Ariz. 1986
In Re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Action No. J-78632 712 P.2d 431 Ariz. 1986
In Re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Action No. J-78632 712 P.2d 431 Ariz. 1986
ARIZONA NEWSPAPERS ASS'N. v. Superior Court 694 P.2d 1174 Ariz. 1985
ARIZONA NEWSPAPERS ASS'N. v. Superior Court 694 P.2d 1174 Ariz. 1985
Lemons v. Superior Court of Gila County 687 P.2d 1257 Ariz. 1984
Lemons v. Superior Court of Gila County 687 P.2d 1257 Ariz. 1984

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by