Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Murphy, 570 P.2d 1070.

41 citing documents.

State v. Padilla Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Padilla Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
(“[I]f contraband is found in an arrestee’s home in an unsecluded or obvious place it is sufficient to sustain a verdict for possession.”).
State v. Koch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Koch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
See, –62 (1977) (sufficient evidence defendant possessed marijuana where it was found “in a place where [defendant] would have knowledge of its presence” even if defendant was not sole occupant); –80, 184 (App. 1981) (evidence that defendant tried to conceal drugs and had related parap
Steve Gallardo v. State of Arizona 336 P.3d 717 Ariz. 2014
Steve Gallardo v. State of Arizona 336 P.3d 717 Ariz. 2014
Redistricting Comm’n, ¶ 21, ( ).
Arizona Minority Coalition for Fair Redistricting v. Redistricting Com'n Arizona Independent 208 P.3d 676 Ariz. 2009
Arizona Minority Coalition for Fair Redistricting v. Redistricting Com'n Arizona Independent 208 P.3d 676 Ariz. 2009
Arizona Minority Coalition for Fair Redistricting v. Redistricting Com'n Arizona Independent 208 P.3d 676 Ariz. 2009
¶ 21 Courts also operate under the expectation that “the legislature acts constitutionally.”
State v. Hardesty 204 P.3d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Hardesty 204 P.3d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
¶33 Similarly, , the defendant argued that the law proscribing the possession of marijuana violated his federal constitutional rights.
Arizona Minority Coalition for Fair Redistricting v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission 121 P.3d 843 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Arizona Minority Coalition for Fair Redistricting v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission 121 P.3d 843 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Standhardt v. Superior Court 77 P.3d 451 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Standhardt v. Superior Court 77 P.3d 451 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Ct., , (using rational basis test under due process provision of Arizona Constitution); , (applying rational basis analysis in deciding whether statute violated Arizona’s constitutional guarantee of privacy).
State v. Cota 956 P.2d 507 Ariz. 1998
State v. Cota 956 P.2d 507 Ariz. 1998
State v. Olea 897 P.2d 1371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. McCuin 808 P.2d 332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. McCuin 808 P.2d 332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Murray 782 P.2d 329 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
State v. Murray 782 P.2d 329 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
State v. Stutelberg 435 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Smith 753 P.2d 1174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
State v. Smith 753 P.2d 1174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Rasmussen by Mitchell v. Fleming 741 P.2d 674 Ariz. 1987
Rasmussen by Mitchell v. Fleming 741 P.2d 674 Ariz. 1987
State v. McInelly 704 P.2d 291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State v. Scotia 704 P.2d 289 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State v. McInelly 704 P.2d 291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State v. Scotia 704 P.2d 289 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State v. Hersch 662 P.2d 1035 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Hersch 662 P.2d 1035 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Ramos 648 P.2d 119 Ariz. 1982
State v. Ramos 648 P.2d 119 Ariz. 1982
Sexstone v. State 622 P.2d 13 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Sexstone v. State 622 P.2d 13 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
State v. Floyd 586 P.2d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Floyd 586 P.2d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Acts of the legislature are presumed constitutional and “when there is a reasonable, even though debatable, basis for the enactment of a statute, we will uphold the act unless it is clearly unconstitutional.”
State v. Arnett 579 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1978
State v. Arnett 579 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1978