Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Nihiser, 953 P.2d 1252.

111 citing documents.

State v. Carlos 17 P.3d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
In Re Timothy M. 4 P.3d 449 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
In Re Timothy M. 4 P.3d 449 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
-96 , -42 (App.1994) (when statutory language gives rise to different interpretations, court will adopt interpretation most harmonious with statutory scheme and legislative purpose and compare interpretation to other acts that are in pari materia); , (because legislative intent is discernible, rule of lenity, if otherwise appropriate, is inapplicable).
State v. Taylor 2 P.3d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Taylor 2 P.3d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Fontes 986 P.2d 897 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
State v. Fontes 986 P.2d 897 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
FACTS ¶2 “We view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdicts and resolve all inferences against appellant.”
State v. Jenkins 970 P.2d 947 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Jenkins 970 P.2d 947 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
In determining legislative intent, the court first considers the statute’s language because it is the “best and most reliable index of a statute’s meaning.” , ( , ).
State v. Cramer 962 P.2d 224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Cramer 962 P.2d 224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998