Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Garza Rodriguez, 791 P.2d 633.

106 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Seymour Jameel Abdullah Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Seymour Jameel Abdullah Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
North Valley Emergency, Specialists, L.L.C. v. Santana 93 P.3d 501 Ariz. 2004
North Valley Emergency, Specialists, L.L.C. v. Santana 93 P.3d 501 Ariz. 2004
(“[W]e presume that by amending a statute, the legislature intends to change the existing law.”).
State v. Vogel 85 P.3d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Vogel 85 P.3d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Further, if possible, we must “give meaning to each clause and consider the effects and consequences as well as the spirit and purpose of the law.”
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Arizona Elec. Power Co-Op., Inc. 83 P.3d 573 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Arizona Elec. Power Co-Op., Inc. 83 P.3d 573 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Christian 66 P.3d 1241 Ariz. 2003
State v. Christian 66 P.3d 1241 Ariz. 2003
(holding that when legislature amends a statute we assume it intended to change existing law).
State v. Thompson 65 P.3d 420 Ariz. 2003
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Dougherty 29 P.3d 862 Ariz. 2001
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Dougherty 29 P.3d 862 Ariz. 2001
Southwestern Paint & Varnish Co. v. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 976 P.2d 872 Ariz. 1999
McCandless v. United Southern Assurance Co. 953 P.2d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
McCandless v. United Southern Assurance Co. 953 P.2d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Bill Alexander Ford, Lincoln Mercury, Inc. v. Casa Ford, Inc. 931 P.2d 1126 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Bill Alexander Ford, Lincoln Mercury, Inc. v. Casa Ford, Inc. 931 P.2d 1126 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
(legislature is presumably aware of existing law when it modifies or enacts statutes).
Homebuilders Ass'n of Central Arizona v. City of Scottsdale 925 P.2d 1359 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Homebuilders Ass'n of Central Arizona v. City of Scottsdale 925 P.2d 1359 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Tucson Electric Power Co. v. Apache County 912 P.2d 9 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Tucson Electric Power Co. v. Apache County 912 P.2d 9 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
See State v. Garza *23 Rodriguez
Brodsky v. Phoenix P.D. Ret. Sys. Bd. 900 P.2d 1228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Brodsky v. Phoenix P.D. Ret. Sys. Bd. 900 P.2d 1228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Tarango 895 P.2d 1009 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Tarango 895 P.2d 1009 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Cid 892 P.2d 216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Cid 892 P.2d 216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Additionally, “[w]e must, if possible, give meaning to each clause and consider the effects and consequences as well as the spirit and purpose of the law.”
Wareing v. Falk 897 P.2d 1381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Wareing v. Falk 897 P.2d 1381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Fogarty 871 P.2d 717 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Fogarty 871 P.2d 717 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
See, , (immediate possession or availability for use of a weapon increases the severity of robbery even though victim is unaware of weapon because robber has created a life-endangering environment); , (burglary of a residence
Business Realty of Arizona, Inc. v. Maricopa County 870 P.2d 1125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Business Realty of Arizona, Inc. v. Maricopa County 870 P.2d 1125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
“We presume that the legislature knows of existing laws when it enacts or modifies a statute,” , and we conclude that the legislature knew that its modification of section 42-201(4) would affect the existing shopping center valuation statute.
State v. Spencer 859 P.2d 146 Ariz. 1993
State v. Spencer 859 P.2d 146 Ariz. 1993
Lee v. Superior Court 840 P.2d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Lee v. Superior Court 840 P.2d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
(meaning must be given to each statutory clause).
State v. DiGiulio 835 P.2d 488 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. DiGiulio 835 P.2d 488 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
(convictions of armed robbery modified to robbery); , (conviction of voluntary manslaughter modified to involuntary manslaughter); , (conviction of first degree burglary modified to second degree b
State v. Bousley 829 P.2d 1212 Ariz. 1992
State v. Bousley 829 P.2d 1212 Ariz. 1992
On appeal, , and argued that the factual bases for his pleas did not support his convictions and sentences.
Devenir Associates v. City of Phoenix 821 P.2d 161 Ariz. 1991
Devenir Associates v. City of Phoenix 821 P.2d 161 Ariz. 1991
Tittle v. State 816 P.2d 267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Tittle v. State 816 P.2d 267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Ellison 819 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Ellison 819 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
On appeal, , to argue that the factual bases were insufficient to support the pleas *426 of no contest to armed robbery.
State v. Perez Lara 823 P.2d 70 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Perez Lara 823 P.2d 70 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
(discussing history of Arizona’s armed robbery statute).