Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Fell, 52 P.3d 218.

87 citing documents.

Renee Antonio Fragoso v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
DaimlerChrysler Services North America, LLC v. Arizona Department of Revenue 110 P.3d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
DaimlerChrysler Services North America, LLC v. Arizona Department of Revenue 110 P.3d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
(“ ‘A well established rule of statutory construction provides that the expression of one or more items of a class indicates an intent to exclude all items of the same class which are not expressed.’ ”) ( , ); ¶ 11 , (same).
State of Arizona v. Stanley Thomas Tyszkiewicz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Stanley Thomas Tyszkiewicz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
3 of the statute and, if it is unclear, then consider other factors such as the statute’s context, history, subject matter, effects and consequences, spirit, and purpose.” (citation omitted).
Orfaly, George, Albrecht, Reid v. Tucson Symphony Society... Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Orfaly, George, Albrecht, Reid v. Tucson Symphony Society... Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
(when statutory language is clear, “no further inquiry is required”).
State v. Williams 99 P.3d 43 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Williams 99 P.3d 43 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Fell 97 P.3d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Fell 97 P.3d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
(“Th[e] rule of [lenity] applies when a statute is ambiguous and dictates that any doubt about statutory construction be resolved in favor of a defendant.”).
State of Arizona v. Rene A. Sanchez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State of Arizona v. Rene A. Sanchez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State of Arizona v. John William Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State of Arizona v. John William Jackson 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
Bridgestone Firestone North America Tire v. A.P.S. Rent a Car & Leasing Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
¶¶ 9, 13, -22 (App. 2002).
State v. Kearney 81 P.3d 338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State v. Kearney 81 P.3d 338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Christina Marie George Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Christina Marie George Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Commitment of Olin Gene Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
In Re the Commitment of Taylor 78 P.3d 1076 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
In Re the Commitment of Taylor 78 P.3d 1076 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
We also seek to harmonize related statutes and ‘aim to achieve consistency among them’ within the context of the overall statutory scheme.” , (citation omitted), quoting Bills v. Ariz. Prop.
Commitment of Olin Gene Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
We also seek to harmonize related statutes and ‘aim to achieve consistency among them’ within the context of the overall statutory scheme.” (citation omitted), quoting Bills v. Ariz. Prop.
State v. Story 75 P.3d 137 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Story 75 P.3d 137 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State of Arizona v. Lenny M. Box Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Lenny M. Box Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State v. Brown 70 P.3d 454 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State v. Brown 70 P.3d 454 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
In addition, the special action raises “questions of law that are of statewide importance, apparently of first impression, and likely to recur.” O’
State of Arizona v. Tyrone Vaughn Henry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Tyrone Vaughn Henry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
See State v. Fell, 203 Ariz. 186, ¶10, (doubts about statutory construction resolved in favor of defendant).
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Gaines 67 P.3d 734 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Gaines 67 P.3d 734 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
See, , 346, ¶ 21, (“[A] declaration of public policy in this guise is a matter for the state and federal legislatures and not the courts.”); -90, ¶ 13 , -22 (App.2002) (-05 , -18 (App.1992) (“[W]e cannot consider the wisdom or soundness of policy of legislative enactments, because such matters are clearly addressed to the legislature, not to the courts.”)).
Boynton v. Anderson 66 P.3d 88 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Boynton v. Anderson 66 P.3d 88 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
¶ 8 Petitioner urges us to apply the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius and find that luring a minor for sexual exploitation is not a “dangerous crime against children.” Under that established rule of statutory construction, “the expression of one or more items of a class indicates an intent to exclude all items of the same class which are not expressed.” ¶ 11 , (quoting State v. Roscoe, 185 Ariz. *48 68, 71, ).