DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Pennington, 717 P.2d 471.

35 citing documents.

  • Soza v. Marner 430 P.3d 1265 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
  • Soza v. Marner 430 P.3d 1265 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
    See State v. Pennington , , (failure of legislature to amend statute reflects agreement with court decision); but see, e.g., Smith v. Lewis , , (despite legislative inaction, reversed earlier decision barring indigent representation by county public defenders in federal courts).
  • State v. Chandler 418 P.3d 1109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
  • State v. Chandler 418 P.3d 1109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
    ¶ 7 We "presum[e] the legislature is aware of existing case law when it passes a statute," State v. Pennington , , 168, , 472 (App. 1985), and we further presume that when the legislature amends a statute, it intended to change the existing law.
  • State of Arizona v. Manuel Fernando Florez 384 P.3d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
  • State of Arizona v. Manuel Fernando Florez 384 P.3d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
    (in enacting sexual touching statute, it is presumed legislature is aware of and approves existing case law interpreting same language); see also Gregory A. McCarthy, Reforming Chapter 14 of Arizona’s Criminal Code: Bringing Consistency, Clarity, Contemporaneity, and Constitutionali
  • State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle 358 P.3d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
  • State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle 358 P.3d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
    No. JV-121430, 172 Ariz. at 606-07, 838 P.2d at 1367-68; (“It is presumed the legislature is aware of existing case law when it passes a statute; and that it is aware of court decisions interpreting the language of the statute; and when it retains the language upon which those decisions are based, it approves the interpretations.”) (citat
  • State of Arizona v. Oscar Castillo Mendoza 321 P.3d 424 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
  • State of Arizona v. Oscar Castillo Mendoza 321 P.3d 424 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
    by any part of the body or by any object or causing a person to engage in such contact.” Indirect touching includes touching through clothing, -69, -73 (App. 1985), and the “person” referred to in § 13-1410(A) can mean the child who is the victim of the molestation offense.
  • Young v. Rose 286 P.3d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • Young v. Rose 286 P.3d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
    (appellate courts presume the legislature is aware of existing ease law when it enacts a statute) ( , ).
  • State v. Yegan 221 P.3d 1027 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • State v. Yegan 221 P.3d 1027 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    ("It is presumed the legislature is aware of existing case law when it passes a statute; and that it is aware of court decisions interpreting the language of the statute^]”).
  • Williams v. Baugh 154 P.3d 373 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
  • Williams v. Baugh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
  • Williams v. Baugh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
  • Williams v. Baugh 154 P.3d 373 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
    (“We presume the legislature is aware of existing statutes when it enacts new statutes____”)
  • Blake v. Schwartz 42 P.3d 6 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • Blake v. Schwartz 42 P.3d 6 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
    (internal citation omitted)
  • Fisher v. Kaufman 38 P.3d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • Fisher v. Kaufman 38 P.3d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • State v. Thompson 34 P.3d 382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • State v. Thompson 34 P.3d 382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • Western Agricultural Insurance v. Chrysler Corp. 6 P.3d 768 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • Western Agricultural Insurance v. Chrysler Corp. 6 P.3d 768 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
    § 12-2101.01(A); ¶ 16 , (arbitration statute expressly permits appeal from order denying arbitration but is silent as to order compelling arbitration); , (legislature presumed aware of existing case law when it enacts statute).
  • State v. Bonillas 3 P.3d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
  • State v. Bonillas 3 P.3d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
  • State v. Aro 937 P.2d 711 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Aro 937 P.2d 711 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • Bartning v. State Farm Fire & Casualty 780 P.2d 1389 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
  • Bartning v. State Farm Fire & Casualty 780 P.2d 1389 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
  • Sertich v. Moorman 767 P.2d 34 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • Sertich v. Moorman 767 P.2d 34 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • Smith v. Lewis 759 P.2d 1314 Ariz. 1988