Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Reynolds, 823 P.2d 681.

95 citing documents.

True v. Stewart 18 P.3d 707 Ariz. 2001
State v. Hoggatt 18 P.3d 1239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Hoggatt 18 P.3d 1239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
¶ 8 Basic principles of statutory interpretation require that we first “seek to discern the intent of the legislature.”
State v. Samano 11 P.3d 1045 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Samano 11 P.3d 1045 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
While we must attempt to discern and effectuate the legislature’s intent, , we look to “[t]he language of [the] statute [as] the most reliable evidence of its intent.”
State v. Petrak 8 P.3d 1174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Petrak 8 P.3d 1174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
If statutory terms are defined, we apply that definition; otherwise, we interpret statutory terms “in accordance with their commonly accepted meanings.”
Milner v. Colonial Trust Co. 6 P.3d 329 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Milner v. Colonial Trust Co. 6 P.3d 329 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Based on the principles of statutory construction, we will “seek to discern the intent of the legislature.”
State v. Leon 3 P.3d 968 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Leon 3 P.3d 968 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
When construing a statute, “we seek to discern the intent of the legislature.”
Matter of Guardianship/Conservatorship of Denton 945 P.2d 1283 Ariz. 1997
Denton v. Superior Court 945 P.2d 1283 Ariz. 1997
Matter of Guardianship/Conservatorship of Denton 945 P.2d 1283 Ariz. 1997
Denton v. Superior Court 945 P.2d 1283 Ariz. 1997
State v. Riggs 942 P.2d 1159 Ariz. 1997
State v. Riggs 942 P.2d 1159 Ariz. 1997
We look primarily to the language of the statute itself and give effect to the statutory terms in accordance with their commonly accepted meanings.”
Tobel v. State, Dept. of Public Safety 939 P.2d 801 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Tobel v. State, Dept. of Public Safety 939 P.2d 801 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
We give effect to the statutory language in accordance with its commonly accepted meaning unless the statute provides a definition or “ ‘it appears from the context that a special meaning was intended.’ ” , (quoting Mid Kansas Fed.
Cutter Aviation, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 958 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Cutter Aviation, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 958 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Dugan v. Fujitsu Business Communications Systems, Inc. 937 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Dugan v. Fujitsu Business Communications Systems, Inc. 937 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Superior Court 923 P.2d 871 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Superior Court 923 P.2d 871 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Pfeil v. Smith 900 P.2d 12 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Pfeil v. Smith 900 P.2d 12 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State Ex Rel. Udall v. Superior Court 904 P.2d 1286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State Ex Rel. Udall v. Superior Court 904 P.2d 1286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Barr 904 P.2d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Barr 904 P.2d 1258 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
§ 1-213, ‘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.
Hayes v. Continental Insurance 872 P.2d 668 Ariz. 1994
Hayes v. Continental Insurance 872 P.2d 668 Ariz. 1994
Sierra Tucson, Inc. v. Pima County 871 P.2d 762 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Sierra Tucson, Inc. v. Pima County 871 P.2d 762 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Nevarez 875 P.2d 184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Nevarez 875 P.2d 184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Milke 865 P.2d 779 Ariz. 1993
State v. Milke 865 P.2d 779 Ariz. 1993
See id.; , (“If a statute’s language is clear and unambiguous, the court will give it effect without resorting to other rules of statutory construction.”); , (“in construing a statute, if the language is plain, there is no occasion for con
State v. Carnegie 850 P.2d 690 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Carnegie 850 P.2d 690 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Johnson 827 P.2d 1134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Johnson 827 P.2d 1134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992