DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Frazier v. Terrill, 175 P.2d 438.

32 citing documents.

  • State v. McCcd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State ex rel. Brnovich v. Maricopa County Community College District Board 395 P.3d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. McCcd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    “When statutes relate to the same subject matter, the later enactment, in the absence of any express repeal or amendment therein, is held to have been enacted in accord with the legislative policy embodied in [t]he earlier statute.” Desert Waters, ( and then United States v. Arizona, 295 U.S. 174, 191 (1935)).
  • State ex rel. Brnovich v. Maricopa County Community College District Board 395 P.3d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    “When statutes relate to the same subject matter, the later enactment, in the absence of any express repeal or amendment therein, is held to have been enacted in accord with the legislative policy embodied in [t]he earlier statute.” Desert Waters, , ( , and then United States v. Arizona, 295 U.S. 174, 191 , 55 S.Ct.
  • Pendergast v. Arizona State Retirement System 323 P.3d 1186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Pendergast v. Arizona State Retirement System 323 P.3d 1186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    may be gathered from statutes relating to the same subject matter—statutes in pari materia.”
  • State of Arizona v. Payne Nelson Daniels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
  • State v. Payne 225 P.3d 1131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
  • State v. Payne 225 P.3d 1131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
    “A fine is a pecuniary form of punishment or sum of money exacted from a person guilty of an offense.” , , (fine is “a pecuniary punishment imposed by a lawful tribunal upon a person convicted of a crime”); State v. Pitts, 26 Ariz.App.
  • State of Arizona v. Payne Nelson Daniels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
    “A fine is a pecuniary form of punishment or sum of money exacted from a person guilty of an offense.” see also Frazier v. Terrill, 65 Ariz. 131, 136, (fine is “a pecuniary punishment imposed by a lawful tribunal upon a person convicted of a crime”); Black’s Law Dictionary 664 (8th ed. 2004) (“‘fine’” is “pecuniary criminal punishment or civil penalty payable to the
  • Roubos v. City of Tucson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
  • Roubos v. City of Tucson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
    ¶22 Citing our supreme court’s the respondent judge concluded, in essence, that the enforcement action must have been a criminal proceeding because the sanction for violating the ordinance is a fine, and a fine is generally a criminal sanction.
  • Employers Mutual Casualty Co. v. McKeon 765 P.2d 513 Ariz. 1988
  • Employers Mutual Casualty Co. v. McKeon 765 P.2d 513 Ariz. 1988
    See, , (in pari materia doctrine used with analogous statute prescribing penalty).
  • State v. Sheaves 747 P.2d 1237 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Sheaves 747 P.2d 1237 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • McLeod v. Chilton 643 P.2d 712 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
  • McLeod v. Chilton 643 P.2d 712 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
    Later in the same opinion, , : On the presumption that whenever the legislature enacts a provision it has in mind the previous statutes relating to the same subject matter, it is held that in the absence of any express repeal or amendment therein, the new provision was enacted in accord with the legislative policy embodied in
  • Blair v. Stump 617 P.2d 791 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
  • Blair v. Stump 617 P.2d 791 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
  • State v. MacKey 489 P.2d 80 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
  • State v. MacKey 489 P.2d 80 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
  • Arizona State Board of Funeral Directors & Embalmers v. Perlman 485 P.2d 287 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • Arizona State Board of Funeral Directors & Embalmers v. Perlman 485 P.2d 287 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • State Ex Rel. Stowell v. Littrell 481 P.2d 889 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • State Ex Rel. Stowell v. Littrell 481 P.2d 889 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • State Ex Rel. Larson v. Farley 471 P.2d 731 Ariz. 1970
  • State Ex Rel. Larson v. Farley 471 P.2d 731 Ariz. 1970
    Shelley appealed to the Superior Court from the order denying his motion to vacate the judgment, and the Superior Court entered an order as follows: “The Court having taken the Motion to Vacate Judgment under advisement and the Court now being satisfied that the Motion to Vacate Judgment is well taken under authority of the case of Frazier-vs-Terrill, 65 Arizona 131, [ ] and the Court being further of the opinion that the result of its determination of the question as aforesaid raises serious ju
  • Desert Waters, Inc. v. Superior Court 370 P.2d 652 Ariz. 1962
  • Desert Waters, Inc. v. Superior Court 370 P.2d 652 Ariz. 1962
    When statutes relate to the same subject matter, the later enactment, in the absence of any express repeal or amendment therein, is held to have been enacted in accord with the legislative policy embodied in the earlier statute, , United States v. State of Arizona, 295 U.S. 174 , 55 S.Ct.
  • State v. Dickens 183 P.2d 148 Ariz. 1947
  • State v. Dickens 183 P.2d 148 Ariz. 1947
    As Justice LaPrade so ably pointed out in Frazier v. Terrill, Ariz., , “fine” ordinarily refers to a criminal penalty.