Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Casey, 71 P.3d 351.

63 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. William Mixton Ariz. 2021
State of Arizona v. William Mixton Ariz. 2021
¶ 11 (2003) (superseded by statute, A.R.S.
State of Arizona v. Richard Allen Reed 456 P.3d 453 Ariz. 2020
State of Arizona v. Richard Allen Reed 456 P.3d 453 Ariz. 2020
State v. Reed 435 P.3d 1044 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Reed 435 P.3d 1044 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Casey , , 362 ¶ 11, , 354 (2003) (citation omitted).
State v. Cooper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Cooper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 8 (2003) (“Normally we interpret clauses in the Arizona Constitution in conformity with decisions of the United States Supreme Court and its interpretation of similar clauses in the United States Constitution.”), superseded by statute on other grounds.
Biggs v. Betlach 392 P.3d 499 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Biggs v. Betlach 392 P.3d 499 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 11 (2003); Chevron Chem.
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle 379 P.3d 197 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle 379 P.3d 197 Ariz. 2016
363 ¶ 15, (superseded by statute, A.R.S.
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle Ariz. 2016
¶ 15, (superseded by statute, A.R.S.
State v. Gill 333 P.3d 36 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Gill 333 P.3d 36 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 10, (citations omitted) (superseded by statute on other grounds); (“The authority to define crimes and fix the penalties for such crimes rests with the legislature, not the judiciary.”).
Vong v. Aune 328 P.3d 1057 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Vong v. Aune 328 P.3d 1057 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
7 VONG et al. v. AUNE Opinion of the Court I. Due Process ¶21 We consider Vong’s state and federal due process claims together because the respective due process clauses “contain nearly identical language and protect the same interests.” ¶ 11, superseded by statute on other grounds, 2006 Ariz. Sess.
Friedman v. Cave Creek Unified School District No. 93 299 P.3d 182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Friedman v. Cave Creek Unified School District No. 93 299 P.3d 182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Statutes are presumed constitutional, ¶ 11 , and the party challenging the statute has the burden of proving its uneonstitutionality, Lisa K. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
State of Arizona v. Marcus Deshaun Tucker, Clifton James Cuttler II and Andre Lavelle Armstrong 290 P.3d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Marcus Deshaun Tucker, Clifton James Cuttler II and Andre Lavelle Armstrong 290 P.3d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
(clauses in Arizona Constitution usually interpreted in conformity with similar clauses of United States Constitution); (in context of right to jury trial, article II, § 24 is Arizona’s analog to Sixth Amendment of Un
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Mathis 290 P.3d 1226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Mathis 290 P.3d 1226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
¶ 20 “Statutes are presumed constitutional and the burden of proof is on the opponent of the statute to show it infringes upon a constitutional guarantee or violates a constitutional principle.” ¶ 11 , (citation omitted).
State v. Bowsher 242 P.3d 1055 Ariz. 2010
State v. Bowsher 242 P.3d 1055 Ariz. 2010
Arpaio v. Maricopa County Board of Supervisors 238 P.3d 626 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Arpaio v. Maricopa County Board of Supervisors 238 P.3d 626 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
¶ 8 , (constitutionality of statute); ¶ 11 , (grant of summary judgment and statutory interpretation).
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
See, , (analyzing hours-of-operation statute under free speech requirements); , (analyzing burden of proof statute under due process requirements); Aros v. Beneficial Ariz., Inc., , (analyzing consumer lender regulations under equal protection requirements).
State v. Martinez 189 P.3d 348 Ariz. 2008
State v. Martinez 189 P.3d 348 Ariz. 2008
¶ 10, (explaining that the power to create affirmative defenses lies with the legislature).
State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008
State v. Cruz 181 P.3d 196 Ariz. 2008
Stewart v. Carroll 154 P.3d 382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Stewart v. Carroll 154 P.3d 382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
the supreme court explained that the federal and state due-process clauses “contain nearly identical language and protect the same interests.” Id.
Williams v. Baugh 154 P.3d 373 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Williams v. Baugh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Williams v. Baugh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
§ 13-401(B); 2 “[A] person 2 We note, however, that the legislature superseded Casey when it amended A.R.S.
Williams v. Baugh 154 P.3d 373 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Walter James Mangum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Walter James Mangum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
(“The federal and state due process clauses contain nearly identical language and protect the same interests.”); n.2, n.2 (App. 2003).
Forty-Seventh Legislature v. Napolitano 143 P.3d 1023 Ariz. 2006
Forty-Seventh Legislature v. Napolitano 143 P.3d 1023 Ariz. 2006
¶ 8, (stating that interpretation of the state constitution is the courts’ province).
State v. Grell 135 P.3d 696 Ariz. 2006
State v. Grell 135 P.3d 696 Ariz. 2006
State of Arizona v. Seymour Jameel Abdullah Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Seymour Jameel Abdullah Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
P.3d 351 (2003); see United States v. Alvarez, 755 F.2d 830, 842 n.12 (11th Cir. 1985) (burden of persuasion on affirmative defenses “may fall on either the government or the defendant, as determined by statute or court decision”).
Renee Antonio Fragoso v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Renee Antonio Fragoso v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
United States Currency, 183 Ariz. at 211, 902 P.2d at 354.