Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Korzep, 799 P.2d 831.

193 citing documents.

State v. Thompson 65 P.3d 420 Ariz. 2003
State v. Thompson 65 P.3d 420 Ariz. 2003
Our primary role when construing a statute is “to determine and give effect to the legislature’s] intent in enacting the statute.”
State v. Thompson 34 P.3d 382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Thompson 34 P.3d 382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Foster v. Anable 19 P.3d 630 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Foster v. Anable 19 P.3d 630 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
section 37-301(A) in such a manner as to give effect to the legislature’s intent
State v. Bomar 19 P.3d 613 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Bomar 19 P.3d 613 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Flynt 13 P.3d 1209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
State v. Flynt 13 P.3d 1209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
“To determine legislative intent, we consider the statute’s context, the language used, the subject matter, the historical background, the statute’s effects and consequences, and the statute’s spirit and purpose.”
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Great Western Publishing, Inc. 3 P.3d 992 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Great Western Publishing, Inc. 3 P.3d 992 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Kessen v. Stewart 990 P.2d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Kessen v. Stewart 990 P.2d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Hill v. Hall Ex Rel. County of Yuma 980 P.2d 967 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Gray v. Irwin 987 P.2d 759 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Gray v. Irwin 987 P.2d 759 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Mahaney 975 P.2d 156 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Mahaney 975 P.2d 156 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Schwab Sales, Inc. v. GN Const. Co., Inc. 992 P.2d 1128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Schwab Sales, Inc. v. GN Const. Co., Inc. 992 P.2d 1128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
State v. Cornish 968 P.2d 606 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Cornish 968 P.2d 606 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
(citing Calvert v. Farmers Ins.
State v. Hussain 942 P.2d 1168 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Hussain 942 P.2d 1168 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Kizzar v. Superior Court 953 P.2d 175 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Kizzar v. Superior Court 953 P.2d 175 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Otherwise, the legislature would have said “within two years next preceding the date of conviction for the present offense.” , (words have usual and ordinary meaning unless legislature clearly intended another meaning).
State v. Superior Court 936 P.2d 558 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
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
State v. Superior Court 936 P.2d 558 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
When interpreting statutory language, “[w]e give words their usual and commonly understood meaning unless the legislature clearly intended a different meaning.”
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Arizona Public Service Co. 934 P.2d 796 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Arizona Public Service Co. 934 P.2d 796 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Ah v. Arizona Prop. and Cas. Ins. Guar. 943 P.2d 738 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Ah v. Arizona Prop. and Cas. Ins. Guar. 943 P.2d 738 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Korzep, 165 Ariz. *746 490, 493
State v. Cruz 938 P.2d 78 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Cruz 938 P.2d 78 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
A.H. v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund 943 P.2d 738 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
A.H. v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund 943 P.2d 738 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Korzep, 165 Ariz. *386 490, 493
Hutcherson v. City of Phoenix 933 P.2d 1251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Hutcherson v. City of Phoenix 933 P.2d 1251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Lewis v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 925 P.2d 751 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Lewis v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 925 P.2d 751 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
See, , (holding that had the legislature intended section 13-411 to apply only when force is used to prevent the commission of crimes by nonresidents, it could easily have said so); Smith v. Superior Court, 17 Ariz.App.
Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System v. Cochise County 920 P.2d 776 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System v. Cochise County 920 P.2d 776 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Abrams Airborne Manufacturing, Inc. v. State Department of Revenue 917 P.2d 1236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Abrams Airborne Manufacturing, Inc. v. State Department of Revenue 917 P.2d 1236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
-94 , -35 (1990) *592 (refusing to limit application of a statute to a specific group of people when the language of the statute contained no such limitation).
Wicks v. Motor Vehicle Division 908 P.2d 1092 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Wicks v. Motor Vehicle Division 908 P.2d 1092 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Vega v. Morris 905 P.2d 535 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995