Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. MacHado, 151 P.3d 533.

17 citing documents.

State v. Schmidt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Harris 301 P.3d 200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
¶ 8 , (describing several bills wherein the legislature expressly stated the statutes apply retroactively), superseded by statute, S.B.
State v. Carver 258 P.3d 256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
¶ 12 , superseded by statute on other grounds; Shane B., 198 Ariz. at 87, ¶ 8 , 7 P.3d at 96 ; see also Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 275 , 114 S.Ct.
State v. Bolding 253 P.3d 279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Any retroactive application of the statute would be problematic because the legislature did not provide that the amendment to § 13-4033 adding subsection (C) was to be applied retroactively and “[n]o law is ‘retroactive unless expressly declared therein.’ ” , quoting A.R.S.
State v. Montes 245 P.3d 879 Ariz. 2011
State v. Rios 237 P.3d 1052 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Although the superior court's ruling was correct when made, , the Arizona Legislature subsequently gave Chap.
STATE COMPENSATION FUND OF ARIZONA v. Fink 233 P.3d 1190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Montes 223 P.3d 681 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
¶¶ 1, 4, 14 , 536 (2007), however, our supreme court determined that the amendment regulated primary conduct, was not made retroactive, and only applied to defendants whose offenses were committed on or after the statute’s effective date of April 24, 2006.
State v. Fish 213 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Valverde 208 P.3d 233 Ariz. 2009
State v. Valverde 204 P.3d 429 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Karr 212 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. 181 P.3d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
An ordinance is “not necessarily ‘ “retroactive in application simply because it may relate to antecedent facts.” ’ ” , quoting Aranda v. Indus.
State v. Aguilar 178 P.3d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Statutory claims ¶23 , and “ignored the clear and unambiguous text of A.R.S.
State ex rel. Thomas v. Duncan 165 P.3d 238 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Gum 153 P.3d 418 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
§ 1-244 (2002); , (recognizing that a newly enacted law applies only prospectively absent a clear expression of retroactivity).
Williams v. Baugh 154 P.3d 373 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
(amendment of § 13-205 not retroactive to primary facts arising before its effective date).