Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Hoggatt, 18 P.3d 1239.

28 citing documents.

In Re: Ms 2015-000003 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
In Re: Ms 2015-000003 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶ 5 (App. 2018); ¶ 4 (App. 2001).
ABCDW LLC v. Banning 388 P.3d 821 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
ABCDW LLC v. Banning 388 P.3d 821 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
can [also] be discovered by examining the development of a particular statute.’ ” ¶ 8 , ( , ).
Stambaugh v. Butler 379 P.3d 250 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State of Arizona v. Marcus Deshaun Tucker, Clifton James Cuttler II and Andre Lavelle Armstrong 290 P.3d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Marcus Deshaun Tucker, Clifton James Cuttler II and Andre Lavelle Armstrong 290 P.3d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Cf. State v. Hoggatt, 199 Ariz. 440, ¶ 13, (in context of statutory interpretation, courts constrained to avoid construction that “would render portions of statute superfluous and meaningless”).
State of Arizona v. Dean William Zinsmeyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Dean William Zinsmeyer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Gamez v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 141 P.3d 794 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
In Re the Commitment of Robert Flemming 131 P.3d 478 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
In Re the Commitment of Robert Flemming 131 P.3d 478 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District 126 P.3d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District 126 P.3d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
SFPP, L.P. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 108 P.3d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
SFPP, L.P. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 108 P.3d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
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
Commitment of Jerry Michael Conn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
In Re the Commitment of Conn 85 P.3d 474 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
In Re the Commitment of Conn 85 P.3d 474 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Reviewing this question of law de novo, , we hold his admissions may be considered by the experts in these SVP proceedings and that the trial court erred in concluding otherwise.
Commitment of Jerry Michael Conn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Reviewing this question of law de novo, we hold his admissions may be considered by the experts in these SVP proceedings and that the trial court erred in concluding otherwise.
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
Interpreting the statute de novo, , we hold that the term includes commitment proceedings under the SVP Act and that the trial court erred in concluding otherwise.
Commitment of Olin Gene Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Interpreting the statute de novo, P.3d 1239 (App. 2001), we hold that the term includes commitment proceedings under the SVP Act and that the trial court erred in concluding otherwise.
Arpaio v. Steinle 35 P.3d 114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Arpaio v. Steinle 35 P.3d 114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
1(a); ¶ 2 , (requiring non-parties to seek relief via special action).