Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Flynt, 13 P.3d 1209.

25 citing documents.

Starr v. Az Bof Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Trap-Zap v. Facilitysource Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Trap-Zap v. Facilitysource Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Zumar v. Caymus 418 P.3d 936 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Zumar v. Caymus 418 P.3d 936 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State of Arizona v. Usef Latrice Simmons II 363 P.3d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Usef Latrice Simmons II 363 P.3d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
(“We presume that the legislature knows the existing laws when it enacts or modifies a statute.”); (we construe statutory provisions to be “‘harmonious and consistent’” within statutory scheme), quoting State ex rel.
State of Arizona v. Daniel Andrew Snider 311 P.3d 656 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Daniel Andrew Snider 311 P.3d 656 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
A threat can “be expressed by words, gestures, or actions,” and “[n]o precise words are necessary,” 168 P. 508, 510 (1917).
Pima County Human Rights Committee v. Arizona Department of Health Services 303 P.3d 71 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Pima County Human Rights Committee v. Arizona Department of Health Services 303 P.3d 71 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
¶14 We must interpret statutes “in light of the entire statutory scheme ‘so they may be harmonious and consistent.’” Cypress on Sunland Homeowners Ass’n v. Orlandini
State v. MENDOZA-TAPIA 273 P.3d 676 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. MENDOZA-TAPIA 273 P.3d 676 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Intention can “be expressed by words, gestures, or actions.” ¶ 6
In Re Eric W. 271 P.3d 486 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
In Re Eric W. 271 P.3d 486 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
“Our primary goal in construing a statute is to determine and give effect to legislative intent.” ¶ 10 , ( ¶ 5 , ).
CYPRESS ON SUNLAND HOMEOWNERS, ASS'N. v. Orlandini 257 P.3d 1168 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
CYPRESS ON SUNLAND HOMEOWNERS, ASS'N. v. Orlandini 257 P.3d 1168 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
¶ 5 , (citation omitted).
Hosea v. City of Phoenix Fire Pension Board 229 P.3d 257 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Hosea v. City of Phoenix Fire Pension Board 229 P.3d 257 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
We construe statutory provisions “ ‘in light of their place in the statutory scheme,’ so ‘they may be harmonious and consistent.’ ” ¶ 5 , (citations omitted).
In Re Nickolas T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
In Re Nickolas T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
(appellate court obligated to construe statutes so they are harmonious with one another and consistent).
In re Daniel A. 108 P.3d 941 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
In re Daniel A. 108 P.3d 941 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
is to determine and give effect to legislative intent.” ¶ 5
In Re Wilputte S. 100 P.3d 929 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
In Re Wilputte S. 100 P.3d 929 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
“Our primary goal in construing a statute is to determine and give effect to legislative intent.” ¶ 5 , (citation omitted).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by