Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Williams, 854 P.2d 131.

245 citing documents.

State v. Pereyra 18 P.3d 146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Derello 18 P.3d 1234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Derello 18 P.3d 1234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
In construing a statute, our goal is “to fulfill the intent of the legislature that wrote it.” , ( , ).
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
Defendant contends that, because he is not a “predator” who poses “a direct and continuing threat to the children of Arizona,” section 13-604.01, the dangerous crimes against children sentencing enhancement, does not apply to him.
State v. Carlisle 8 P.3d 391 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Carlisle 8 P.3d 391 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
This statute increases the penalties for specified offenses when a defendant’s conduct is “focused on, directed against, aimed at, or target[s] a victim under the age of fifteen.”
State v. Gaffney 8 P.3d 376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
State v. Gaffney 8 P.3d 376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
City of Sierra Vista v. Director, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 988 P.2d 162 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
City of Sierra Vista v. Director, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 988 P.2d 162 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
¶ 10 When construing a statute, our goal “is to fulfill the intent of the legislature that wrote it.”
Rineer v. Leonardo 977 P.2d 767 Ariz. 1999
Rineer v. Leonardo 977 P.2d 767 Ariz. 1999
“[T]he best and most reliable index of a statute’s meaning is its language.”
State v. Medina 975 P.2d 94 Ariz. 1999
State v. Medina 975 P.2d 94 Ariz. 1999
State v. Flannigan 978 P.2d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Flannigan 978 P.2d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
¶28 Relying on the Arizona Supreme Court’s , Flannigan argues that it was simply fortuitous that passengers in the vehicle he struck were under the age of 15, and that it is therefore irrational to increase the felony classification for the aggravated assault solely because of this fact.
Champlin v. Sargeant 965 P.2d 763 Ariz. 1998
Champlin v. Sargeant 965 P.2d 763 Ariz. 1998
Merrick v. Lewis 952 P.2d 309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Merrick v. Lewis 952 P.2d 309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Our goal is “to fulfill the intent of the legislature that wrote it.”
State v. Ramirez 945 P.2d 376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Nihiser 953 P.2d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
State v. Nihiser 953 P.2d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
When construing a statute, our goal “is to fulfill the intent of the legislature that wrote it.”
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. Hussain 942 P.2d 1168 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Hussain 942 P.2d 1168 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
When interpreting a statute, our goal is “to fulfill the intent of the legislature that wrote it.”
State v. Jones 937 P.2d 310 Ariz. 1997
State v. Jones 937 P.2d 310 Ariz. 1997
When a term is not defined in a statute, the court looks first to the statute’s language to determine the legislative intent, as the language is the “best and most reliable index of a statute’s meaning.” , ( , ).
State v. DePiano 926 P.2d 494 Ariz. 1996
Mohave Disposal, Inc. v. City of Kingman 922 P.2d 308 Ariz. 1996
Mohave Disposal, Inc. v. City of Kingman 922 P.2d 308 Ariz. 1996
(goal in construing a statute is “to fulfill the intent of the legislature that wrote it.”).
Zamora v. Reinstein 915 P.2d 1227 Ariz. 1996
Zamora v. Reinstein 915 P.2d 1227 Ariz. 1996
When construing statutes, oúr goal is “to fulfill the intent of the legislature that wrote it.”
Kiley v. Jennings, Strouss & Salmon 927 P.2d 796 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Kiley v. Jennings, Strouss & Salmon 927 P.2d 796 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Jansing 918 P.2d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Jansing 918 P.2d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
section 13-604.01 and the Arizona Supreme Court’s , and we vacate defendant’s sentence on the aggravated assault conviction (Count II) and remand for resentencing on that count.
State v. Roscoe 912 P.2d 1297 Ariz. 1996
State v. Roscoe 912 P.2d 1297 Ariz. 1996
v. Ferguson, , , (“If the language [of the statute] is plain, we need look no further.”).
Zamora v. Superior Court 904 P.2d 1294 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Zamora v. Superior Court 904 P.2d 1294 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995