Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Sweet, 693 P.2d 921.
- Alhambra School District v. Superior Court 780 P.2d 401 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
- State ex rel. Arizona Department of Health Services v. Cochise County 786 P.2d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
-
State ex rel. Arizona Department of Health Services v. Cochise County
786 P.2d 407
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
-70 , -25 (1985) (confusion in statutory interpretation resolved by turning to legislative intent of the statute).
- Prescott Newspapers, Inc. v. Yavapai Community Hospital Ass'n 785 P.2d 1221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
- Prescott Newspapers, Inc. v. Yavapai Community Hospital Ass'n 785 P.2d 1221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
- State v. Watkins 776 P.2d 359 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
-
State v. Watkins
776 P.2d 359
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
The petitioner, , , an open end offense occuring prior to August 3, 1984 cannot be utilized for enhancement purposes.
- State v. Behl 774 P.2d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
- State v. Behl 774 P.2d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
- State v. Flores 772 P.2d 589 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
- State v. Flores 772 P.2d 589 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
- State v. Sirny 772 P.2d 1145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
- State v. Sirny 772 P.2d 1145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
- State v. Bouchier 767 P.2d 233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
- State v. Bouchier 767 P.2d 233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
- Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Superior Court 764 P.2d 759 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
- Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Superior Court 764 P.2d 759 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
- State v. Wagstaff 775 P.2d 1130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
- State v. Wagstaff 775 P.2d 1130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
- Perez v. Maricopa County 760 P.2d 1089 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
-
Perez v. Maricopa County
760 P.2d 1089
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
But, “[a]n ambiguity in a statute is ‘not simply that arising from the meaning of particular words, but includes such as may arise in respect to the general scope and meaning of a statute when all its provisions are examined.’ ”
- State v. Tocco 750 P.2d 874 Ariz. 1988
- State v. Tocco 750 P.2d 874 Ariz. 1988
- State v. Welker 748 P.2d 783 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
-
State v. Welker
748 P.2d 783
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
§ 13-3404(B)(2) mirrors the language of former § 13-702(G), , decided by the Arizona Supreme Court, apply to make it improper to leave the offense undesignated?
- State v. Ramos 747 P.2d 629 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
- State v. Ramos 747 P.2d 629 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
- Employers Mutual Casualty Co. v. McKeon 743 P.2d 7 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
-
Employers Mutual Casualty Co. v. McKeon
743 P.2d 7
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Chase v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins.
- State v. Rodriguez 735 P.2d 792 Ariz. 1987
-
State v. Rodriguez
735 P.2d 792
Ariz. 1987
Arizona Newspapers Association v. *186 Superior Court
- State v. Stuck 739 P.2d 1333 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
-
State v. Stuck
739 P.2d 1333
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
*21 , vacated in other part, , Division 2 of this court specifically rejected the argument that Rule 410 is applicable to such statements.
- State v. Winton 736 P.2d 386 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
- State v. Winton 736 P.2d 386 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
- State v. Fallon 726 P.2d 608 Ariz. 1986
- State v. Fallon 726 P.2d 608 Ariz. 1986
- Haines v. POLICE PENSION BD. OF PHOENIX 733 P.2d 1129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
- Haines v. POLICE PENSION BD. OF PHOENIX 733 P.2d 1129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
- State v. Livanos 725 P.2d 505 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
-
State v. Livanos
725 P.2d 505
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
-72 , -27 (1985), the court noted that the new criminal code made significant changes in the criminal statutes including the classification of felonies and misdemeanors for sentencing purposes.
- Burke v. Arizona State Retirement System 732 P.2d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
- State v. Fallon 726 P.2d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
- State v. Fallon 726 P.2d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
- State v. Cannon 713 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1985
-
State v. Cannon
713 P.2d 273
Ariz. 1985
We need not consider all of appellant’s arguments, however
- State v. Thompson 711 P.2d 1238 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
- State v. Thompson 711 P.2d 1238 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
- State v. Schroeder 710 P.2d 475 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
- State v. Schroeder 710 P.2d 475 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985