Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Taylor v. Cruikshank, 148 P.3d 84.

41 citing documents.

State v. Begay Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Begay Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
But a “court abuses its discretion when it misapplies the law or predicates its decision on incorrect legal principles.” ¶ 11 (App. 2008) ( ¶ 10 (App. 2006)).
State of Arizona v. Albert F. Vergara Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
State of Arizona v. Albert F. Vergara Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
State v. Castillo-Islas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Castillo-Islas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Johnson v. Hon hartsell/state 525 P.3d 1091 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Johnson v. Hon hartsell/state 525 P.3d 1091 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Batty v. Az Medical Brd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Batty v. Az Medical Brd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶ 25 (App. 2006) (explaining that the rule may apply “in a criminal case” involving an ambiguous statute such that doubts of statutory construction are resolved in favor of the defendant).
State v. Chacon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Chacon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
“A trial court abuses its discretion when it misapplies the law or predicates its decision on incorrect legal principles.” ¶ 10 (App. 2006) ( ¶ 12 (2004)).
Paradigm DKD Grp., LLC v. Pima Cnty. Assessor 439 P.3d 1210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
Paradigm DKD Grp., LLC v. Pima Cnty. Assessor 439 P.3d 1210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
Taylor v. Cruikshank , , ¶ 10, (quoting State v. Fell , , ¶ 6, ).
State v. Head Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Head Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Crosby-Garbotz v. Fell 418 P.3d 1112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
Crosby-Garbotz v. Fell 418 P.3d 1112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
See Taylor v. Cruikshank , , ¶ 2
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
¶14 We agree with Florez insofar as he maintains “the legislature did not intend to perform a futile act” by creating a definition of masturbatory “sexual intercourse” purely coextensive with its definition of “sexual contact.” See Flores, 160 Ariz. at 240, 772 P.2d at 594; -89 (App. 2006) (court will endeavor to avoid construing statutory subsections as redundant or superfluous).
State v. Whitlock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Whitlock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Neese 366 P.3d 561 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Neese 366 P.3d 561 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State of Arizona v. Pierre Banda 307 P.3d 1009 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Pierre Banda 307 P.3d 1009 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
t, because the period prescribed by a statute of limitations is jurisdictional in Arizona, he is permitted to raise it pursuant to Rule 32.1(b), which permits relief if “[t]he court was without jurisdiction to render judgment or to impose sentence.” He contends the trial court improperly “disagree[d]” with our decision 3 P.3d 84 (App. 2006), by determining “that a statute of limitations claim is not jurisdictional.” ¶8 We agree with Banda that Arizona has adopted the minority rule that a statute
Democratic Party of Pima County v. Beth Ford Pima County Board of Supervisors 269 P.3d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Democratic Party of Pima County v. Beth Ford Pima County Board of Supervisors 269 P.3d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Cicoria v. Cole 215 P.3d 402 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Cicoria v. Cole 215 P.3d 402 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
¶ 6 , (if a statute is susceptible to more than one interpretation and resort to interpretive aids such as context, legislative history, and purpose does not resolve the ambiguity, the rule of lenity comes into play and dictates that any doubt should be resolved in favor of the defendant); , (acknowledging that, though the statutory language at issue was ambiguous, the rule of lenity did not apply because the legislature’s intent was not susceptible to more than one interpretation).
Joseph M. Arpaio v. Citizen Publishing Co. Mark Kimble Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Joseph M. Arpaio v. Citizen Publishing Co. Mark Kimble Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
“We resort to additional considerations ‘such as the statute’s context, history, subject matter, effects and consequences, spirit, and purpose’ only if the language proves to be ambiguous.”
Nowell v. Rees 199 P.3d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Nowell v. Rees 199 P.3d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
In re MH 2007-000937 189 P.3d 1090 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
In re MH 2007-000937 189 P.3d 1090 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Aguilar 178 P.3d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State v. Aguilar 178 P.3d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State v. Thomas 175 P.3d 71 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Gum 153 P.3d 418 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Gum 153 P.3d 418 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
¶ 11 Two months after the State filed its response, Gum filed a motion for expedited consideration based on an opinion issued by another panel of this court