Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite In Re Paul M., 7 P.3d 131.
- Silverman v. Ades Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
-
Silverman v. Ades
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
¶ 7 (App. 2000) (holding we may refer to “established, widely respected dictionar[ies]”) (citation omitted).
- Perla M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
-
Perla M. v. Dcs
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
7 PERLA M. v. DCS et al. Decision of the Court equating the two as the same, we would violate “the rule of statutory construction that requires us to presume that ‘when the legislature alters the language of a statute[,] it intended to create a change in the existing law.’” ¶ 6 (App. 2000) ().
- State of Arizona v. Tyler B. 290 P.3d 435 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
- State of Arizona v. Tyler B. 290 P.3d 435 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
- In Re Nickolas S. 245 P.3d 446 Ariz. 2011
- In Re Nickolas S. 226 P.3d 1038 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
-
In Re Nickolas S.
226 P.3d 1038
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
¶22 We disagree with the State that our decision in , has already limited A.R.S.
- State of Arizona v. Orvie Rowland Streck Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
- State of Arizona v. Orvie Rowland Streck Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
- State v. Slayton 154 P.3d 1057 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
-
State v. Slayton
154 P.3d 1057
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
¶ 4 , (Legislative intent often can be discovered by examining the development of a particular statute.)
- Ulan v. Pima County Board of Supervisors 145 P.3d 650 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
-
Ulan v. Pima County Board of Supervisors
145 P.3d 650
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
“Our goal in construing a statute is to discern and give effect to the intent of the legislature.”
- LINDA v. v. ARIZONA DEPT. OF ECONOMIC SEC. 117 P.3d 795 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
- LINDA v. v. ARIZONA DEPT. OF ECONOMIC SEC. 117 P.3d 795 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
- State v. Korovkin 47 P.3d 1131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
- State v. Korovkin 47 P.3d 1131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
- Mara M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 38 P.3d 41 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
- Mara M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 38 P.3d 41 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
- In Re Adam P. 34 P.3d 398 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
- In Re Adam P. 34 P.3d 398 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
470 n. 3, , 911 n. 3 (1983) (Random House Dictionary of the English Language-used in statutory construction context); -25, ¶ 7 , -34 (App.2000) (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary); ¶¶ 12-13 , (Webster’s College Dictionary).
- In Re Kyle M. 27 P.3d 804 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
-
In Re Kyle M.
27 P.3d 804
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
¶ 4 , (“ ‘Legislative intent often can be discovered by examining the development of a particular statute.’ ” ( , )).
- State v. Flynt 13 P.3d 1209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
-
State v. Flynt
13 P.3d 1209
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
From this amendment, we presume the legislature intended to change existing law, , and thus remove any limitation the word “risk” might place on § 13-502(D).