Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Stummer, 194 P.3d 1043.

34 citing documents.

State v. Campo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
CENTER FOR AZ v. AZ SECRETARY OF STATE Ariz. 2026
Karen Fann v. State of Arizona 493 P.3d 246 Ariz. 2021
Karen Fann v. State of Arizona 493 P.3d 246 Ariz. 2021
See, e.g., Empress Adult Video & ¶ 41 (App. 2002) (applying severability analysis to an unconstitutional statute as applied), disapproved on other grounds, ¶ 22 & n.6 (2008); –09 (1976) (same).
Brush & Nib v. City of Phoenix Ariz. 2019
Brush & Nib v. City of Phoenix Ariz. 2019
Brush & Nib v. Phoenix 418 P.3d 426 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Brush & Nib v. Phoenix 418 P.3d 426 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 16 (App. 2008) (applying federal free speech jurisprudence because courts have had limited opportunities to develop Arizona’s free speech clause).
Kimberly McLaughlin v. Hon. jones/suzan McLaughlin Ariz. 2017
Kimberly McLaughlin v. Hon. jones/suzan McLaughlin Ariz. 2017
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).
COMMITTEE FOR JUSTICE & FAIRNESS v. Arizona Secretary of State's Office 332 P.3d 94 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
COMMITTEE FOR JUSTICE & FAIRNESS v. Arizona Secretary of State's Office 332 P.3d 94 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Korwin v. Cotton 323 P.3d 1200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Korwin v. Cotton 323 P.3d 1200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
ide these issues under the Arizona Constitution; specifically, Article 2, Section 6, which states: “Every person may freely speak, write, and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right.” ¶ 11 The test for determining the constitutionality of “content-based secondary effects regulations” restricting speech, under Article 2, Section 6
State of Arizona v. Anthony Connue Serrano 323 P.3d 774 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Anthony Connue Serrano 323 P.3d 774 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
n.5, n.5 (App. 2010) (noting due process right to notice of registration requirement); n.7, n.7 (2008) (observing “sex offender status has significant and far-reaching consequences”); ¶¶ 17, 30, 543-44 (2008) (finding sex offender registration sufficiently severe consequence to trigger certain constitutional procedural rights).
Coleman v. City of Mesa 284 P.3d 863 Ariz. 2012
Coleman v. City of Mesa 284 P.3d 863 Ariz. 2012
See, P.3d 1043 (2008) (identifying standard for evaluating content-based secondary effects regulations).
In re Javier B. 280 P.3d 644 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
In re Javier B. 280 P.3d 644 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
In the context of adult sex offender registration, our supreme court has observed that "sex offender status has significant and far-reaching consequences.” , 144 n. 7, ¶ 23, , 1050 n. 7 (2008); -93, ¶ 30 , -44 (2008) (holding that sex offender registration is a sufficiently severe consequence so as to require a jury trial in misdemeanor cases involving sexual motivation).
State v. Cota 272 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2012
State v. Cota 272 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2012
State v. Stummer, 219 Ariz 137, 141 ¶ 7
Rumery v. Baier 268 P.3d 1120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Rumery v. Baier 268 P.3d 1120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
See Empress Adult Video & ¶ 29 , (stating the constitutional “framers were presumably aware of existing law”), , 144 n. 6, ¶ 22, , 1050 n. 6 (2008).
Coleman v. City of Mesa 265 P.3d 422 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Coleman v. City of Mesa 265 P.3d 422 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Although our supreme court has held that Article 2, Section 6 affords greater protection to speech than the First Amendment, ¶ 17 , Mountain States Tel.
State v. Patterson 218 P.3d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Patterson 218 P.3d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Arizona Minority Coalition for Fair Redistricting v. Redistricting Com'n Arizona Independent 208 P.3d 676 Ariz. 2009
Arizona Minority Coalition for Fair Redistricting v. Redistricting Com'n Arizona Independent 208 P.3d 676 Ariz. 2009
See, , (analyzing hours-of-operation statute under free speech requirements); , (analyzing burden of proof statute under due process requirements); Aros v. Beneficial Ariz., Inc., , (analyzing consumer lender regulations
State v. Zamora 202 P.3d 528 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Zamora 202 P.3d 528 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
990 , 51 L.Ed.2d 260 (1977)); , 141 n. 3, , 1047 n. 3 (2008) (concurring opinion is considered the controlling opinion if it is "the narrowest opinion joining in the judgment of the Court.") (quoting Center for Fair Pub.