Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Hansen, 160 P.3d 166.
- State of Arizona v. Hon. hegyi/rasmussen 396 P.3d 1095 Ariz. 2017
- State of Arizona v. Hon. hegyi/rasmussen 396 P.3d 1095 Ariz. 2017
- State v. McCcd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
- State ex rel. Brnovich v. Maricopa County Community College District Board 395 P.3d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
-
State v. McCcd
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
We do not find that to be the case here, especially given our duty “to harmonize, whenever possible, related statutory and rule provisions.” ¶ 13 (2014) ( ¶ 7 (2007)).
-
State ex rel. Brnovich v. Maricopa County Community College District Board
395 P.3d 714
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
We do not find that to be the case here, especially given our duty “to harmonize, whenever possible, related statutory and rule provisions.” ¶ 13 , ( ¶7 , ).
- American Power Products, Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc. 396 P.3d 600 Ariz. 2017
-
American Power Products, Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc.
396 P.3d 600
Ariz. 2017
See Hall, 229 Ariz. at 283 ¶¶ 19-20, 274 P.3d at 1217 (harmonizing § 12-341.01(A) with Rule 68 to “conclude that comparing the ‘judgment finally obtained’ under § 12-341.01(A) to a settlement offer should involve only those reasonable fees and costs incurred as of the date the offer was made”); , 289 ¶ 7, (stating that, whenever possible, we harmonize rules and statutes and read them in conjunction with each other).
- Premier Physicians Group, PLLC v. Navarro 377 P.3d 988 Ariz. 2016
- Premier Physicians Group, PLLC v. Navarro 377 P.3d 988 Ariz. 2016
- State v. Hon. hegyi/rasmussen 378 P.3d 428 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-
State v. Hon. hegyi/rasmussen
378 P.3d 428
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶10 Moreover, when interpreting rules and statutes, they “should be harmonized wherever possible and read in conjunction with each other.” ¶ 7, (quoting Phoenix of Hartford, Inc. v. Harmony Rests., Inc., ).
- Kresock v. Gordon Ex Rel. County of Maricopa 370 P.3d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-
Kresock v. Gordon Ex Rel. County of Maricopa
370 P.3d 120
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 8 (2014) (“’[T]he best and most reliable index of a statute’s meaning is its language and, when the language is clear and unequivocal, it is determinative of the statute’s construction.’”) ( ¶ 7 (2007)); ¶ 11 (2003) (“The court must give effect to each word of the statute.”); P.F.
- dobson/anderson v. Hon. mcclennen/mesa Prosecutor 361 P.3d 374 Ariz. 2015
- dobson/anderson v. Hon. mcclennen/mesa Prosecutor 361 P.3d 374 Ariz. 2015
- State of Arizona v. Shawn Patrick Lynch 357 P.3d 119 Ariz. 2015
-
State of Arizona v. Shawn Patrick Lynch
357 P.3d 119
Ariz. 2015
We review the interpretation of statutes and constitutional provisions de novo, ¶ 6, and evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion.
- State v. Jurden 352 P.3d 455 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
-
State v. Jurden
352 P.3d 455
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶¶ 6-7 , (appellate court reviews issue of statutory construction de novo; “best and most reliable index of a statute’s meaning is its language”); McGill, 213 Ariz. at 153, ¶ 21 , 140 P.3d at 936 (appellate court reviews de novo whether State has violated defendant’s right against double
- Phillips v. Garcia 351 P.3d 1105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
- Phillips v. Garcia 351 P.3d 1105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
- Katelin Newman v. Cornerstone National Insurance Company Dba Freedom National Insurance Services Ariz. 2015
- Katelin Newman v. Cornerstone National Insurance Company Dba Freedom National Insurance Services 344 P.3d 337 Ariz. 2015
- Katelin Newman v. Cornerstone National Insurance Company Dba Freedom National Insurance Services 344 P.3d 337 Ariz. 2015
- Katelin Newman v. Cornerstone National Insurance Company Dba Freedom National Insurance Services Ariz. 2015
- Kpnx v. Hon. stephens/state 340 P.3d 1075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
- DBT Yuma, L.L.C. v. Yuma County Airport Authority 340 P.3d 1080 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-
DBT Yuma, L.L.C. v. Yuma County Airport Authority
340 P.3d 1080
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
If “‘the language is clear and unequivocal, it is determinative of the statute’s construction.’” ¶ 7, (quoting Deer Valley Unified Sch.
-
Kpnx v. Hon. stephens/state
340 P.3d 1075
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
We interpret rules of criminal procedure by applying the principles of statutory construction and first look to the plain text of the rule because that is “the best and most reliable index of [the rule’s] meaning[.]” ¶ 7, (quoting Deer Valley Unified Sch.
- State v. Coulter 339 P.3d 653 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-
State v. Coulter
339 P.3d 653
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“‘[T]he best and most reliable index of a statute’s meaning is its language and, when the language is clear and unequivocal, it is determinative of the statute’s construction.’” ¶ 7, (citation omitted).
- Dobson v. McClennen 337 P.3d 568 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-
Dobson v. McClennen
337 P.3d 568
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
344 ¶ 8, ( , 289 ¶ 7, ).
- J.D. M.M. v. Hon. hegyi/t.D./state of Arizona 335 P.3d 1118 Ariz. 2014
-
J.D. M.M. v. Hon. hegyi/t.D./state of Arizona
335 P.3d 1118
Ariz. 2014
§ 2.1(D); ¶ 11, (discussing scope of legislature’s rulemaking power).
- State of Arizona v. David Soto Cecena 334 P.3d 1282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
-
State of Arizona v. David Soto Cecena
334 P.3d 1282
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
“[T]he best and most reliable index of a statute’s meaning is its language,” and if that language is clear, then “‘we rely on the plain language rather than utilizing other ways of interpreting the statute.’” Cornerstone Hosp.
- State of Arizona v. Shawnte Shuree Jones 334 P.3d 191 Ariz. 2014
- State of Arizona v. Shawnte Shuree Jones 334 P.3d 191 Ariz. 2014
- State v. Randles 334 P.3d 730 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-
State v. Randles
334 P.3d 730
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 5, ¶ 7, (constitutionality of statutes reviewed de novo); ¶ 6, (same).
- State of Arizona v. Armando Pena, Jr. 331 P.3d 412 Ariz. 2014
- State of Arizona v. Armando Pena, Jr. 331 P.3d 412 Ariz. 2014
- Alexander M. v. Hon. abrams/ades 328 P.3d 1045 Ariz. 2014
- Alexander M. v. Hon. abrams/ades 328 P.3d 1045 Ariz. 2014
- Metzler v. Bci Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Los Angeles, Inc. 329 P.3d 1043 Ariz. 2014
- Metzler v. Bci Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Los Angeles, Inc. 329 P.3d 1043 Ariz. 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