DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Forino v. Arizona Department of Transportation, 952 P.2d 315.

39 citing documents.

  • In the Matter of William John Chalmers Ariz. 2025
  • In the Matter of William John Chalmers Ariz. 2025
    (noting that the violation of a directory statute, “without more, such as a showing that the opposing party has suffered substantial detriment, is not sufficient” to void the proceedings); Forino v. Ariz. Dep’t of Transp., 81 (App. 1997) (finding that failure to comply with directory statute “did not divest the agency of jurisdiction absent any demonstrated prejudice”); see also Statute, Black’s Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024) (defining “directory statute” as a “law that indicates only what shoul
  • Allen v. Adot Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • Allen v. Adot Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    “As a general rule, if a statute states the time for performance of an official duty, without any language denying performance after a specified time, it is directory.” Forino v. Arizona Dep’t of Transp., (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).
  • Debra Arrett and Shirley Lamonna v. Julie K. Bower 345 P.3d 129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
  • Debra Arrett and Shirley Lamonna v. Julie K. Bower 345 P.3d 129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
    § 5-110(A), statute regulating horse racing, as directory and indicating “desirability, preference, or permission” after viewing statute “as a whole” to determine its constitutionality); Forino v. Ariz. Dep’t of Transp., -81, -19 (App. 1997) (determining time period for conducting driver’s license suspension hearing before Arizona Department of Transportation under Arizona’s implied consent statute directory not mandatory, and failure to hold hearing within period did not divest agency of jurisd
  • SVENDSEN v. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 323 P.3d 1179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
  • SVENDSEN v. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 323 P.3d 1179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
    See Forino v. Ariz. Dep’t of Transp., (listing formerly numbered provision among grounds for appellate jurisdiction); Ricard v. Ariz. Dep’t of Transp., (same); Diaz v. Ariz. Dep’t of Transp., (same); Braun v. Motor Vehic
  • Steven Lane Fuller v. State of Arizona 314 P.3d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
  • Steven Lane Fuller v. State of Arizona 314 P.3d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
    The state responds that “[a]s a general rule, if a statute ‘states the time for performance of an official duty, without any language denying performance after a specified time, it is directory.’” Forino v. Ariz. Dep’t of Transp., quoting Watahomigie v. Ariz. Bd.
  • Joshua J. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 286 P.3d 166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • Joshua J. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 286 P.3d 166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
    (quoting Watahomigie v. Bd.
  • ARIZONA DEPT. OF ECONOMIC SEC. v. Lee 264 P.3d 34 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • ARIZONA DEPT. OF ECONOMIC SEC. v. Lee 264 P.3d 34 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • State v. UNKEFER 239 P.3d 749 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • State v. UNKEFER 239 P.3d 749 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    See S. Union Gas Co., 119 Ariz. at 514, 582 P.2d at 160 (violation of directory provision that superior court shall hear an appeal within 90 days; “violation of this ninety-day provision, without more, such as a showing that the opposing party has suffered substantial detriment, is not sufficient”); Forino v. Ariz. Dep’t of Transp., , (delayed hearing under directory statute did not cause prejudice).
  • STATE EX REL. BRANNAN v. Williams 171 P.3d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • STATE EX REL. BRANNAN v. Williams 171 P.3d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    (“To discern the legislature’s intent, we may consider the effect and consequences of alternative construction.”).
  • Phoenix City Prosecutor's Office v. Ybarra 160 P.3d 695 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • Phoenix City Prosecutor's Office v. Ybarra 160 P.3d 695 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    See Forino v. Ariz. Dep’t of Transp., , (“To discern the legislature’s intent, we may consider the effect and consequences of alternative construction.”).
  • Falcon v. Maricopa County 128 P.3d 767 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
  • Falcon v. Maricopa County 128 P.3d 767 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
    See Forino v. Ariz. Dep’t of Transp., , (“To discern the legislature’s intent, we may consider the effect and consequences of alternative construction.”); ¶ 5 , (holding rules of procedure interpreted in same manner as statutes).
  • State v. Barraza 104 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
  • Riepe v. Riepe 91 P.3d 312 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • Riepe v. Riepe 91 P.3d 312 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
    Forino v. Ariz. Dep’t of Transp., , (“To discern the legislature’s intent, we may consider the effect and consequences of alternative construction.”).
  • Bridgestone Firestone North America Tire v. A.P.S. Rent a Car & Leasing Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
  • Bridgestone Firestone North America Tire v. A.P.S. Rent a Car & Leasing Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
    ¶16 Nonetheless, “‘[t]o discern the legislature’s intent, we may consider the effect and consequences of alternative construction.’” 1236 (App. 2003), quoting Forino v. Arizona Dep’t of Transp.
  • Way v. State 67 P.3d 1232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
  • Way v. State 67 P.3d 1232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
    See Tornabene, , ; Forino v. Arizona Dep’t of Transp.
  • Lake Havasu City v. Arizona Department of Health Services 48 P.3d 499 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • Lake Havasu City v. Arizona Department of Health Services 48 P.3d 499 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
    at 484 , 657 P.2d at 897 ; , (“ten day requirement for action by the superior court is directory and not mandatory”); Forino v. Ariz. Dep’t of Transp., , (failure to conduct hearing within statutory time did not divest agency of jurisdiction).
  • McDonald v. Thomas 12 P.3d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • McDonald v. Thomas 12 P.3d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
    See Medrano-Barraza, 190 Ariz. at 474 , 949 P.2d at 563 ; Forino v. Arizona Dep’t of Transp., , (court “may consider the effect and consequences of alternative construction”).
  • In Re the Marriage of Dorman 9 P.3d 329 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
  • In Re the Marriage of Dorman 9 P.3d 329 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
    We may also consider “the effect and consequences of alternative construction.” Forino *302 v. Arizona Dep’t of Transp.
  • Lucille v. Dodge 5 P.3d 925 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • Lucille v. Dodge 5 P.3d 925 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
    See Forino v. Arizona Dep’t of Transp., , (“To discern the legislature’s intent, we may consider the effect and consequences of alternative construction.”); , (cardinal rule of statutory interpretation is to ascertain legislative intent, and court
  • Francis v. Arizona Department of Transportation 963 P.2d 1092 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • Francis v. Arizona Department of Transportation 963 P.2d 1092 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
    (review denied March 17, 1998) we held that ADOT’S failure to hold an implied consent hearing as required by statute within thirty days of a timely request did not invalidate the license suspension, in the absence of prejudice to the driver.