Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Miller, 413 P.2d 757.

73 citing documents.

State v. Bryars Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Bryars Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Bd., ¶ 7 (2018)) (); see also A.R.S.
State of Arizona v. Maria Chavez Cisneros 534 P.3d 932 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
State of Arizona v. Maria Chavez Cisneros 534 P.3d 932 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
State of Arizona v. Nicolas Luviano 530 P.3d 388 Ariz. 2023
State of Arizona v. Nicolas Luviano 530 P.3d 388 Ariz. 2023
State v. Hons. brearcliffe/vasquez 525 P.3d 1085 Ariz. 2023
State v. Hons. brearcliffe/vasquez 525 P.3d 1085 Ariz. 2023
American Civil Liberties Union of Az v. Dcs Ariz. 2021
American Civil Liberties Union of Az v. Dcs Ariz. 2021
Karen Fann v. State of Arizona 493 P.3d 246 Ariz. 2021
Karen Fann v. State of Arizona 493 P.3d 246 Ariz. 2021
State v. Mullet Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Mullet Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
“[T]he words of a statute are to be given their ordinary meaning unless it appears from the context or otherwise that a different meaning is intended.”
State v. Maricopa Cnty. Cmty. Coll. Dist. Bd. 416 P.3d 803 Ariz. 2018
State v. Maricopa Cnty. Cmty. Coll. Dist. Bd. 416 P.3d 803 Ariz. 2018
“[T]he words of a statute are to be given their ordinary meaning unless it appears from the context or otherwise that a different meaning is intended.”
Samiuddin v. Hon. nothwehr/state Ariz. 2017
Samiuddin v. Hon. nothwehr/state Ariz. 2017
“[T]he words of a statute are to be given their ordinary meaning unless it appears from the context or otherwise that a different meaning is intended.”
Dale Allen Wright v. Hon. gates/state Ariz. 2017
Dale Allen Wright v. Hon. gates/state Ariz. 2017
A statute’s words are “given their ordinary meaning unless it appears from the context or otherwise that a different meaning is intended.”
Kimberly McLaughlin v. Hon. jones/suzan McLaughlin Ariz. 2017
Kimberly McLaughlin v. Hon. jones/suzan McLaughlin Ariz. 2017
“[T]he words of a statute are to be given their ordinary meaning unless it appears from the context or otherwise that a different meaning is intended.”
LEVERAGED LAND COMPANY, LLC v. Hodges 232 P.3d 756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
LEVERAGED LAND COMPANY, LLC v. Hodges 232 P.3d 756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Getz 944 P.2d 503 Ariz. 1997
State v. Getz 944 P.2d 503 Ariz. 1997
“The crime, and the elements constituting it, must be so clearly expressed that the ordinary person can intelligently choose, in advance, what course it is lawful for him to pursue.”
Miller v. BD. OF SUP'RS OF PINAL CTY. 855 P.2d 1357 Ariz. 1993
Ponderosa Plaza v. Siplast 888 P.2d 1315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Miller v. Board of Supervisors 855 P.2d 1357 Ariz. 1993
Miller v. BD. OF SUP'RS OF PINAL CTY. 855 P.2d 1357 Ariz. 1993
526, 535 , 11 L.Ed.2d 481 (1964) ("No right is more precious in a free country."); , ("The right to engage in political activities ...
Miller v. Board of Supervisors 855 P.2d 1357 Ariz. 1993
526, 535 , 11 L.Ed.2d 481 (1964) (“No right is more precious in a free country.”); , (“The right to engage in political activities ...
Ponderosa Plaza v. Siplast 888 P.2d 1315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Bird v. State Through Corbin 821 P.2d 287 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Bird v. State Through Corbin 821 P.2d 287 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Mecham Recall Committee, Inc. v. Corbin 745 P.2d 950 Ariz. 1987
Mecham Recall Committee, Inc. v. Corbin 745 P.2d 950 Ariz. 1987
We have previously stated, “the right to engage in political activities, or to make contributions to a campaign, is a privilege of citizenship which can only be denied by express language of a statute.”
Franzi v. Superior Court of Arizona 679 P.2d 1043 Ariz. 1984
Franzi v. Superior Court of Arizona 679 P.2d 1043 Ariz. 1984
State v. Self 661 P.2d 224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Self 661 P.2d 224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
McIntyre v. Mohave County 620 P.2d 696 Ariz. 1980
McIntyre v. Mohave County 620 P.2d 696 Ariz. 1980
*319 Words and phrases in statutes shall be “given their ordinary meaning unless it appears from the context or otherwise that a different meaning is intended.”
State v. Raffaele 550 P.2d 1060 Ariz. 1976
State v. Raffaele 550 P.2d 1060 Ariz. 1976
Figueroa v. Industrial Commission 529 P.2d 1188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Figueroa v. Industrial Commission 529 P.2d 1188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
State v. Cartwright 510 P.2d 405 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State v. Cartwright 510 P.2d 405 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Specifically, , the Arizona Supreme Court in finding that an indictment was not defective, stated: “.
State v. Church 504 P.2d 940 Ariz. 1973
State v. Church 504 P.2d 940 Ariz. 1973

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by