Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Gomez, 127 P.3d 873.

98 citing documents.

Keenan Reed-Kaliher v. State of Arizona 332 P.3d 587 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Keenan Reed-Kaliher v. State of Arizona 332 P.3d 587 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
¶ 11 The validity of the conditions prohibiting Reed-Kaliher from possessing or using marijuana for any reason turns on the interpretation of the immunity provision in the AMMA “Our primary objective in construing statutes adopted by initiative is to give effect to the intent of the electorate.”
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
Furthermore, we "construe statutes, when possible, to avoid constitutional difficulties.” , 60 ¶ 28, (citing Hayes v. Cont'l Ins.
Clean Elections v. Hon. brain/bennett Ariz. 2014
Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission v. Brain 322 P.3d 139 Ariz. 2014
Clean Elections v. Hon. brain/bennett Ariz. 2014
15 ARIZONA CITIZENS CLEAN ELECTIONS COMMISSION V. BRAIN (BENNETT) VICE CHIEF JUSTICE BALES, Dissenting ¶36 “Our primary objective in construing statutes adopted by initiative is to give effect to the intent of the electorate.” See Brewer, 221 Ariz. at 470 ¶ 10, 212 P.3d at 808 ( ¶ 11, ); Op.
Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission v. Brain 322 P.3d 139 Ariz. 2014
15 ARIZONA CITIZENS CLEAN ELECTIONS COMMISSION V. BRAIN (BENNETT) VICE CHIEF JUSTICE BALES, Dissenting ¶36 “Our primary objective in construing statutes adopted by initiative is to give effect to the intent of the electorate.” See Brewer, 221 Ariz. at 470 ¶ 10, 212 P.3d at 808 ( ¶ 11, ); Op.
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
County of Maricopa, ¶ 17 , ( ¶ 11 , ).
Special Fund Division v. Industrial Commission 302 P.3d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Special Fund Division v. Industrial Commission 302 P.3d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Robert Baker v. University Physicians Healthcare 296 P.3d 42 Ariz. 2013
Robert Baker v. University Physicians Healthcare 296 P.3d 42 Ariz. 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
is to give effect to the intent of the electorate.” ¶ 11
Merrill v. Merrill 284 P.3d 880 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Merrill v. Merrill 284 P.3d 880 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
¶ 28 , ("We also construe statutes, when possible, to avoid constitutional difficulties."); ¶ 27 , (court has "duty to construe a statute so as to render it constitutional if reasonably possible”).
Fogliano v. BRAIN EX REL. CTY. OF MARICOPA 270 P.3d 839 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Fogliano v. BRAIN EX REL. CTY. OF MARICOPA 270 P.3d 839 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
is to give effect to the intent of the electorate.” ¶ 11
State of Arizona v. Linda Ann Siplivy 265 P.3d 1104 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Linda Ann Siplivy 265 P.3d 1104 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
In Re Nickolas S. 245 P.3d 446 Ariz. 2011
Short v. Dewald 244 P.3d 92 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Short v. Dewald 244 P.3d 92 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Simmons 240 P.3d 279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Simmons 240 P.3d 279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. King 235 P.3d 240 Ariz. 2010
State v. King 235 P.3d 240 Ariz. 2010
State v. Diaz 230 P.3d 705 Ariz. 2010
State v. Diaz 230 P.3d 705 Ariz. 2010
EARLY CHILD. DEVEL. & HEALTH BD. v. Brewer 212 P.3d 805 Ariz. 2009
EARLY CHILD. DEVEL. & HEALTH BD. v. Brewer 212 P.3d 805 Ariz. 2009
Prince & Princess Enterprises, LLC v. State Ex Rel. Arizona Department of Health Services 209 P.3d 141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Segura v. Cunanan 196 P.3d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Segura v. Cunanan 196 P.3d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
-60, ¶25 , -78 (2006) (“Arizona law allows a prosecuting attorney to proceed with felony charges by way of an indictment, which reflects a grand jury’s determination that probable cause exists to believe the defendant has committed the charged offense, or by information.”).
Hon. Michael K Carroll v. Comm on Judicial Conduct 160 P.3d 1140 Ariz. 2007
Hon. Michael K Carroll v. Comm on Judicial Conduct 160 P.3d 1140 Ariz. 2007
¶ 28, (declining to construe statute in a manner that would raise serious constitutional questions).
State of Arizona v. Ramon Anthony Joyner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Ramon Anthony Joyner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State v. Hansen 160 P.3d 166 Ariz. 2007
State v. Hansen 160 P.3d 166 Ariz. 2007
Although we attempt to construe statutes and rules in a way that averts needless constitutional tension, ¶ 28, we cannot create harmony where none exists.
In Re Jerry C. 151 P.3d 553 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
In Re Jerry C. 151 P.3d 553 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 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 best and most reliable index of a statute’s meaning is its language and, where the language is clear and unequivocal, it is determinative of a statute’s construction.” Id.; (when statutory language “is ‘clear and unambiguous,’ and thus subject to only one reasonable meaning, we .
State v. McGill 140 P.3d 930 Ariz. 2006
State v. McGill 140 P.3d 930 Ariz. 2006