Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Reynolds, 823 P.2d 681.
- ADVANTAGE POOL v. MILES Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
-
ADVANTAGE POOL v. MILES
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
We give statutory terms their commonly accepted meaning “unless the legislature has offered its own definition of the words or it appears from the context that a special meaning was intended.” Planned Parenthood Ariz., ¶ 16 (2024) ().
- State of Arizona v. Kalill Stubblefield Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
-
State of Arizona v. Kalill Stubblefield
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
mmonly accepted meanings, ‘unless the legislature has offered its own definition of the words or it appears from the context that a special meaning was intended.’” Planned Parenthood Ariz., Inc. v. 4 ().
- Smith v. Target Corp Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
-
Smith v. Target Corp
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Statutory terms must be given their “commonly accepted meanings, ‘unless the legislature has offered its own definition of the words or it appears from the context that a special meaning was intended.’” Planned Parenthood Ariz., ¶ 16 (2024) ().
- Amy Silverman v. Ades Ariz. 2024
- Amy Silverman v. Ades Ariz. 2024
- Wood v. Coconino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
-
Wood v. Coconino
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Statutory phrases must be interpreted “in accordance with their commonly accepted meanings, ‘unless the legislature has offered its own definition of the words or it appears from the context that a special meaning was intended.’” (internal citation omitted) (quoting Mid Kan.
- Planned Parenthood v. Kristin mayes/hazelrigg Ariz. 2024
-
Planned Parenthood v. Kristin mayes/hazelrigg
Ariz. 2024
¶16 Statutory terms must be given effect “in accordance with their commonly accepted meanings, ‘unless the legislature has offered its own definition of the words or it appears from the context that a special meaning was intended.’” (internal citation omitted) (quoting Mid Kan.
- State v. Yug 501 P.3d 246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
-
State v. Yug
501 P.3d 246
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
§ 13-712(B) to permit presentence incarceration credit solely for time spent in “actual incarceration in a prison or jail.” -37 (1992); (recognizing that A.R.S.
- Muscat v. creative/akande Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
- Muscat v. creative/akande Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
- State v. Jones 424 P.3d 447 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
-
State v. Jones
424 P.3d 447
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
7 STATE v. JONES Opinion of the Court are defined, we apply that definition.”) ().
- State v. Dickenson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
- State v. Dickenson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
- State v. Gonzalez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
-
State v. Gonzalez
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
§ 13–712(B), a defendant is entitled to credit for all time that is “actually spent in custody.” For the purposes of that statute, a defendant is in custody beginning at the time of “actual incarceration in a prison or jail, not simply a restraint on one’s freedom.”
- State v. Gallentine Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
-
State v. Gallentine
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
purposes of that statute, a defendant is in custody beginning at the time of “actual incarceration in a prison or jail, not simply a restraint on one’s freedom.” STATE v. GALLENTINE Decision of the Court 690, 691 (App. 1993)
- State of Arizona v. Joann Bon 338 P.3d 989 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
-
State of Arizona v. Joann Bon
338 P.3d 989
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
And, “[i]f statutory terms are defined, we apply that definition; otherwise, we interpret statutory terms ‘in accordance with their commonly accepted meanings.’”
- State v. Eskivel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-
State v. Eskivel
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
§ 13-712(B) (2010), and custody is “equated with incarceration in a jail or prison and not merely with the substantial restraint of freedom which is commensurate with an arrest or detention,” -35, -83 (1992) ( ).
- PNC Bank v. Cabinetry by Karman, Inc. 284 P.3d 874 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
- PNC Bank v. Cabinetry by Karman, Inc. 284 P.3d 874 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
- State v. Gray 258 P.3d 242 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
- State v. Gray 258 P.3d 242 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
- State v. Young 224 P.3d 944 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
- State v. Young 224 P.3d 944 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
- STATE EX REL. INDUS. COM'N v. Word 211 P.3d 1267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
- STATE EX REL. INDUS. COM'N v. Word 211 P.3d 1267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
- State v. Jernigan 209 P.3d 153 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
- State v. Jernigan 209 P.3d 153 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
- State v. Simpson 173 P.3d 1027 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
-
State v. Simpson
173 P.3d 1027
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
¶ 16 In construing a statute, “[w]e look primarily to the language of the statute itself and give effect to the statutory terms in accordance with their commonly accepted meanings.”
- State of Arizona v. Kenneth Scott MacHado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
- State of Arizona v. Kenneth Scott MacHado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
- Arizona Department of Revenue v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District 126 P.3d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
-
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District
126 P.3d 1063
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
This rule applies “unless the legislature has offered its own definition of the words or it appears from the context that a special meaning was intended.” , (quoting Mid Kansas Fed.
- State v. Cofield 107 P.3d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
-
State v. Cofield
107 P.3d 930
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
“Arizona court decisions have consistently interpreted the ‘in custody' requirement of this statute to mean actual or constructive control of prison or jail authorities.” , , -16 , -3 (App.1990).
- State of Arizona v. Jeffrey Allen Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
-
State of Arizona v. Jeffrey Allen Brown
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
shment purposes, is to be determined by value, prior convictions, and the methodology used to facilitate the offense.” ¶16 When interpreting a statute, we seek “to determine and give effect to the legislature’s intent.” (App. 7 2000); P.2d 681 (1992) (statutory interpretation requires court to discern legislative intent).
- In re Russell M. 21 P.3d 409 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
- In re Russell M. 21 P.3d 409 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001