Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Cassius, 520 P.2d 1109.

54 citing documents.

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
O’Brien, 123 Ariz. at 583; (“Where a statute first expresses a general intent, and later an inconsistent particular intent, such particular intent will be taken as an exception to the general intent, and both will stand.”).
Planned Parenthood v. Kristin mayes/hazelrigg Ariz. 2024
Planned Parenthood v. Kristin mayes/hazelrigg Ariz. 2024
(“Where a statute first expresses a general intent, and later an inconsistent particular intent, such particular intent will be taken as an exception to the general intent, and both will stand.”).
In Re: Erica Krystal Riggins 544 P.3d 64 Ariz. 2024
In Re: Erica Krystal Riggins 544 P.3d 64 Ariz. 2024
d v. Hubbs, (addressing legislative amendments to the Financial Code of 1922), (noting that “a later valid act of the legislature supersedes all previous acts with which it is in conflict, whether it expressly repeals the earlier provisions or not”); (discussing subsequent acts of legislature); (discussing legislative enactments under Title 16 in 1933 and 1960).
Arizona Republican Party v. Fontes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Arizona Republican Party v. Fontes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
§ 16-548(A); (“Where statutes in [p]ari materia are in apparent conflict, they should be construed in harmony so as to give force and effect to each.”).
Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc. v. Mark Brnovich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc. v. Mark Brnovich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
See, (when later statute expresses more specific intent than more general existing statutes, new statute is “taken as an exception to the general intent, and both will stand”); O’Brien, 123 Ariz. at 583 (legislatures presumed to enact statutes compatible with existing legislation: “where the [later] specific st
Doe v. Arizona Board of Regents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Doe v. Arizona Board of Regents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
In fact, “[w]here a later statute does not expressly repeal a former one, they should be construed so as to give effect to each, if possible.”
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Rayes 75 P.3d 148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Rayes 75 P.3d 148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
see also State v. Norcross, 26 Ariz.App.
State v. Ward 26 P.3d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Ward 26 P.3d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Frohlich v. City Court 995 P.2d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Frohlich v. City Court 995 P.2d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
(statutes harmonized “so as to give force and effect to each”).
Prudential v. Estate of Rojo-Pacheco 962 P.2d 213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Prudential v. Estate of Rojo-Pacheco 962 P.2d 213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
We presume that when the legislature enacts a statute, it is aware of existing statutes, , and “[w]here a later statute does not expressly repeal a former one, they should be construed so as to give effect to each, if possible.”
Yslava v. Hughes Aircraft Co. 936 P.2d 1274 Ariz. 1997
Yslava v. Hughes Aircraft Co. 936 P.2d 1274 Ariz. 1997
(‘Where a statute first expresses a general intent, and later an inconsistent particular intent, such particular intent will be taken as an exception to the general intent, and both will stand.”), cert.
State v. Cook 916 P.2d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Cook 916 P.2d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Alexander v. Fund Manager, Public Safety Personnel Retirement System 804 P.2d 122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Alexander v. Fund Manager, Public Safety Personnel Retirement System 804 P.2d 122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Stevens 744 P.2d 37 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Stevens 744 P.2d 37 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Robinson 735 P.2d 801 Ariz. 1987
State v. Robinson 735 P.2d 801 Ariz. 1987
Because we cannot assume that the legislature intended to enact a useless statute, , 7 we are forced to conclude that the legislature intended A.R.S.
Schoonover v. Arizona Title Insurance & Trust Co. 616 P.2d 898 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Schoonover v. Arizona Title Insurance & Trust Co. 616 P.2d 898 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
State v. Schultz 597 P.2d 1023 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
State v. Schultz 597 P.2d 1023 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
State v. Ferguson 579 P.2d 559 Ariz. 1978
State v. Ferguson 579 P.2d 559 Ariz. 1978
State v. Arnett 579 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1978
State v. Arnett 579 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1978
State v. Harmon, 25 Ariz.App.
Arizona State Land Department v. R. H. Fulton, Inc. 577 P.2d 255 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Arizona State Land Department v. R. H. Fulton, Inc. 577 P.2d 255 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
State v. Nettz 560 P.2d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
State v. Nettz 560 P.2d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
78 , vacated on other grounds
State v. Reim 549 P.2d 1046 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Reim 549 P.2d 1046 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
§ 13-1641 is applicable is to “eliminate the elements in one charge and determine whether the facts left would support the other charge.”
State v. Corrales 548 P.2d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
State v. Corrales 548 P.2d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
State v. Superior Court 544 P.2d 276 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
State v. Superior Court 544 P.2d 276 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
State v. Deddens 542 P.2d 1124 Ariz. 1975
State v. Deddens 542 P.2d 1124 Ariz. 1975