Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Casey, 71 P.3d 351.
- State of Arizona v. Derek Scott Oaks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
- State of Arizona v. Derek Scott Oaks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
- McKaney v. Foreman 100 P.3d 18 Ariz. 2004
- State of Arizona v. Charles Scott Newnom Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
- State of Arizona v. Charles Scott Newnom Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
- Carl Seel v. Tim Sifert Ariz. 2004
-
Carl Seel v. Tim Sifert
Ariz. 2004
In addition, when a statute and the constitution both address the same issue, they should be - 10 - interpreted in harmony “when it is reasonably possible to do so.” ¶ 8
- State v. Vogel 85 P.3d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
- State v. Vogel 85 P.3d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
- State v. Brown 85 P.3d 109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
- State of Arizona v. Lawrence Brown, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
-
State v. Brown
85 P.3d 109
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
And, that presumption “requires the challenging party to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the statute violates some provision of the constitution.” Bird, 184 Ariz. at 203 , 908 P.2d at 17 ; , (statutes are presumed to be constitutional, and party challenging statute must show it infringes on constitu *237 tional guarantee or violates constitutional principle).
-
State of Arizona v. Lawrence Brown, Jr.
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
And, that presumption “requires the challenging party to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the statute violates some provision of the constitution.” Bird, 184 Ariz. at 203, 908 P.2d at 17; (statutes are presumed to be constitutional, and party challenging statute must show it infringes on constitutional guarantee or violates constitutional principle).