Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Hansen, 160 P.3d 166.

220 citing documents.

State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Newell 210 P.3d 1283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Arpaio v. Davis 210 P.3d 1287 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
*120 289, ¶ 7, (holding whenever possible, rules and statutes’ should be harmonized and read in conjunction with each other).
Seisinger v. Siebel 203 P.3d 483 Ariz. 2009
Seisinger v. Siebel 203 P.3d 483 Ariz. 2009
¶ 8 Although we have occasionally said that procedural rulemaking power is vested “exclusively” in this Court, , 289 ¶ 9, -58 , -39 (1984), this statement is in some respects an oversimplification.
City of Phoenix v. Johnson 204 P.3d 447 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
City of Phoenix v. Johnson 204 P.3d 447 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Patterson v. Mahoney 199 P.3d 708 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Followed Patterson v. Mahoney 199 P.3d 708 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
¶ 7 , (citations omitted).
Valerie M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 195 P.3d 192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Valerie M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 195 P.3d 192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Stummer 194 P.3d 1043 Ariz. 2008
State v. Stummer 194 P.3d 1043 Ariz. 2008
State v. Armstrong 189 P.3d 378 Ariz. 2008
State v. Armstrong 189 P.3d 378 Ariz. 2008
¶ 12, 160 (quoting State ex rel.
Haroutunian v. Valueoptions Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Haroutunian v. Valueoptions Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
But we review de novo questions involving the interpretation of court rules and “evaluate procedural rules using principles of statutory construction.” ¶¶ 7, 13, 1032 (App. 2005); (principles of statutory construction used to interpret court rules).
Manuel M. v. Ades, Leila M., Alayena M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Manuel M. v. Ades, Leila M., Alayena M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
(statutory construction principles applied to interpret court rules); Maricopa County No. JS-5209, 143 Ariz. at 183, 692 P.2d at 1032 (statute “will not be held void for vagueness if any reasonable and practical construction can be given to its language”).8 As discussed below, a reaso
In Re Reymundo F. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
In Re Reymundo F. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008