Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Estrada, 34 P.3d 356.

135 citing documents.

Hannosh v. Segal 328 P.3d 1049 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona Ex Rel. Montgomery v. Hrach Shilgevorkyan 322 P.3d 160 Ariz. 2014
State of Arizona Ex Rel. Montgomery v. Hrach Shilgevorkyan 322 P.3d 160 Ariz. 2014
251 ¶ 14, (observing that a “result is absurd if it is so irrational, unnatural, or inconvenient that it cannot be supposed to have been within the intention of persons with ordinary intelligence and discretion”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission v. Brain 311 P.3d 1093 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission v. Brain 311 P.3d 1093 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
To do this we exercise de novo review, *286 6 ¶ 15 , and apply well-established principles of statutory construction.
Stout v. Taylor 311 P.3d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Stout v. Taylor 311 P.3d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
¶ 17 , O’Connor, 207 Ariz. at 413, ¶ 11 , 87 P.3d at 101 .
Frank Hoffman v. Hon. chandler/state 295 P.3d 939 Ariz. 2013
Frank Hoffman v. Hon. chandler/state 295 P.3d 939 Ariz. 2013
-51 ¶ 16, -60 (2001) (stating court interprets and applies statute “in a way that will avoid an untenable or irrational result”).
State of Arizona v. Joseph Lawrence Dixon 294 P.3d 157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Joseph Lawrence Dixon 294 P.3d 157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Cave Creek Unified School District v. Ducey 295 P.3d 440 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Cave Creek Unified School District v. Ducey 295 P.3d 440 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
a result at odds with the legislature’s intent.” ¶ 19 , (internal quotations and citation omitted).
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Woodburn 292 P.3d 201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Followed State ex rel. Montgomery v. Woodburn 292 P.3d 201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
We review the issue de novo because it is “a question of statutory construction.” ¶ 15
State v. Loney 287 P.3d 836 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. Loney 287 P.3d 836 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
a result at odds with the legislature’s intent.” ¶ 19 , (internal quotations and citation omitted).
State of Arizona v. Joel Agustin Lopez 282 P.3d 424 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Joel Agustin Lopez 282 P.3d 424 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
In Re Estate of King 269 P.3d 1189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
In Re Estate of King 269 P.3d 1189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
a result at odds with the legislature’s intent.” ¶ 19 , (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Alex Paul Rasmussen v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Alex Paul Rasmussen v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
/s/ Peter J. Eckerstrom PETER J. ECKERSTROM, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ Garye L. Vásquez GARYE L. VÁSQUEZ, Presiding Judge /s/ Virginia C. Kelly VIRGINIA C. KELLY, Judge Evans Withycombe, Inc. v. W. Innovations, Inc.
State v. Gray 258 P.3d 242 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. Gray 258 P.3d 242 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Gutierrez v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 249 P.3d 1095 Ariz. 2011
Gutierrez v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 249 P.3d 1095 Ariz. 2011
251 ¶ 17, (finding a result absurd “if it is so ...
State v. Russell 249 P.3d 1116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Russell 249 P.3d 1116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
CNL Hotels & Resorts, Inc. v. Maricopa County 244 P.3d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
CNL Hotels & Resorts, Inc. v. Maricopa County 244 P.3d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Additionally, in interpreting statutes, we strive to avoid an absurd result, which is defined as one “so irrational, unnatural, or inconvenient that it cannot be supposed to have been within the intention of persons with ordinary intelligence and discretion.” ¶ 17 , (quoting Perini Land & Dev.
LEVERAGED LAND COMPANY, LLC v. Hodges 232 P.3d 756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
LEVERAGED LAND COMPANY, LLC v. Hodges 232 P.3d 756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
"An absurd result is one 'so irrational, unnatural, or inconvenient that it cannot be supposed to have been within the intention of persons with ordinary intelligence and discretion.’ " Evans Withycombe, Inc. v. W. Innovations, Inc.
State v. Patterson 218 P.3d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Patterson 218 P.3d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Jones v. Paniagua 212 P.3d 133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Jones v. Paniagua 212 P.3d 133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
See Evans Withycombe, Inc. v. Western Innovations, Inc., ¶ 12 , (An absurd result is one “so irrational, unnatural, or inconvenient that it cannot be supposed to have been within the intention of persons with ordinary intelligence and discretion.”) ( ¶ 17 , ).
Heath v. Kiger 176 P.3d 690 Ariz. 2008
Heath v. Kiger 176 P.3d 690 Ariz. 2008
7 ¶12 Although Heath’s argument finds some support in a parsing of statutes and court rules, “[c]ourts should avoid hypertechnical constructions that frustrate legislative intent.” ¶ 19, ( ¶ 20, ); see also United States v. Superior Court, 144 Ariz. 265, 275-76, -69 (1985) (noting that constitutional
State ex rel. Thomas v. Contes 169 P.3d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State ex rel. Thomas v. Contes 169 P.3d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
¶ 17 , (citations and quotations omitted) (“A result is absurd if it is so irrational, unnatural, or inconvenient that it cannot be supposed to have been within the intention of persons with ordinary intelligence and discretion.”).
State of Arizona v. Alejandro Chaparro Romero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Alejandro Chaparro Romero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
[a]nd, both cases were released before our supreme court issued [State v.] Estrada, [ P.3d 356 (2001)], which established that Proposition 200 should be construed broadly and liberally in terms of what crimes it encompasses.” Romero therefore asks this court to “disavow Roman and hold that the superior reasoning of Pereyra should apply” to his case.2 1 Section 13-901.01 codifi
State of Arizona v. Francisco Lazaro Gonzalez, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Francisco Lazaro Gonzalez, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Evans Withycombe, Inc. v. Western Innovations, Inc. 159 P.3d 547 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Evans Withycombe, Inc. v. Western Innovations, Inc. 159 P.3d 547 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
An absurd result is one “so irrational, unnatural, or inconvenient that it cannot be supposed to have been within the intention of persons with ordinary intelligence and discretion.” ¶ 17 , (quoting Perini Land and Dev.
Stoudamire v. State of Arizona 141 P.3d 776 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Stoudamire v. State of Arizona 141 P.3d 776 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State v. Gomez 127 P.3d 873 Ariz. 2006