Cited by

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

193 citing documents.

Vega v. Morris 905 P.2d 535 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
In construing a statute, our primary purpose is to “determine and give effect to the legislative intent behind the statute.”
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
Bell v. Smitty's Super Valu, Inc. 900 P.2d 15 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Bell v. Smitty's Super Valu, Inc. 900 P.2d 15 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Life Investors Insurance Co. of America v. Horizon Resources Bethany, Ltd. 898 P.2d 478 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Life Investors Insurance Co. of America v. Horizon Resources Bethany, Ltd. 898 P.2d 478 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
Corp., , ); , (words given usual and commonly-understood meaning unless legislature clearly intended different one); , (words of statute given ordinary meaning unless it appears from context different meaning should control).
Mail Boxes v. Industrial Commission 888 P.2d 777 Ariz. 1995
Mail Boxes v. Industrial Commission 888 P.2d 777 Ariz. 1995
State v. Valdez 894 P.2d 708 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Valdez 894 P.2d 708 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Moerman 895 P.2d 1018 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Metro Collections v. Meggers 886 P.2d 649 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Moerman 895 P.2d 1018 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
In construing a statute, our primary purpose is to “determine and give effect to the legislative intent behind the statute.”
Metro Collections v. Meggers 886 P.2d 649 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
In determining the 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.”
Hayes v. Continental Insurance 872 P.2d 668 Ariz. 1994
Gibbons v. Superior Court 873 P.2d 700 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Gibbons v. Superior Court 873 P.2d 700 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Hayes v. Continental Insurance 872 P.2d 668 Ariz. 1994
(examining statute’s history, effects, wording, and the *269 context of the overall legislative scheme).
Smalley v. Detrick 859 P.2d 1341 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Smalley v. Detrick 859 P.2d 1341 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Lowing v. Allstate Insurance 859 P.2d 724 Ariz. 1993
Lowing v. Allstate Insurance 859 P.2d 724 Ariz. 1993
Ponderosa Plaza v. Siplast 888 P.2d 1315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Ponderosa Plaza v. Siplast 888 P.2d 1315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Williams 854 P.2d 131 Ariz. 1993
State v. Williams 854 P.2d 131 Ariz. 1993
State v. Helffrich 846 P.2d 151 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Helffrich 846 P.2d 151 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
348, 350 , examining the policy behind the statute and the evil sought to be remedied, , , State ex rel.
State Compensation Fund v. Ireland 851 P.2d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State Compensation Fund v. Ireland 851 P.2d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-123196 834 P.2d 160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-123196 834 P.2d 160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Reynolds 823 P.2d 681 Ariz. 1992
State v. Reynolds 823 P.2d 681 Ariz. 1992
Korzep v. Superior Court 838 P.2d 1295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Korzep v. Superior Court 838 P.2d 1295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Taylor 817 P.2d 488 Ariz. 1991
State v. Taylor 817 P.2d 488 Ariz. 1991
We recently stated “that the justification defense in § 13-411 applies only when a home, its contents, or its residents are being protected by the use of force against another.” , ( , ).
Tracy v. Superior Court 810 P.2d 1030 Ariz. 1991
Tracy v. Superior Court 810 P.2d 1030 Ariz. 1991
See, , (“We give words their usual and commonly understood meaning unless the legislature clearly intended a different meaning.”).