Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Pitts, 874 P.2d 962.

33 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Edwardo Serrato III Ariz. 2025
State of Arizona v. Edwardo Serrato III Ariz. 2025
“[W]hen possible, we interpret statutes to give meaning to every word.” ¶ 13 (2018) ().
Bekelian v. Jp Morgan 439 P.3d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Bekelian v. Jp Morgan 439 P.3d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Robin Silver v. Pueblo Del Sol Water Co 423 P.3d 348 Ariz. 2018
Robin Silver v. Pueblo Del Sol Water Co 423 P.3d 348 Ariz. 2018
Co., ¶ 15 (2003) (noting that we seek to “give meaning to each word, clause or sentence, considered in light of the entire act and the purpose for which it was enacted into law”); (presuming that “the legislature did not intend to write a statute that contains a void, meaningless, or futile provision”).
State v. Hon. gates/apolinar Altamirano 410 P.3d 433 Ariz. 2018
State v. Hon. gates/apolinar Altamirano 410 P.3d 433 Ariz. 2018
“We presume the legislature did not intend to write a statute that contains a void, meaningless, or futile provision”; thus, “[w]hen possible, we interpret statutes to give meaning to every word.”
In re Jessie T. 399 P.3d 103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
In re Jessie T. 399 P.3d 103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(“When possible, we interpret statutes to give meaning to every word.”).
Dos Picos Land Ltd. Partnership v. Pima County 240 P.3d 853 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Dos Picos Land Ltd. Partnership v. Pima County 240 P.3d 853 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
(court will not interpret statute in manner rendering any word, phrase, or clause meaningless); , (“We presume the legislature did not intend to write a statute that contains a void, meaningless, or futile provision.”).
Old Republic National Title Insurance v. New Falls Corp. 233 P.3d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Old Republic National Title Insurance v. New Falls Corp. 233 P.3d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
“We presume the legislature did not intend to write a statute that contains a void, meaningless, or futile provision.”
Lebaron Properties, LLC v. Jeffrey S. Kaufman, Ltd. 221 P.3d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Lebaron Properties, LLC v. Jeffrey S. Kaufman, Ltd. 221 P.3d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
(we avoid interpretation of a statute that renders it meaningless).
State v. Zaragoza 202 P.3d 489 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Zaragoza 202 P.3d 489 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
(“We presume the legislature did not intend to write a statute that contains a void, meaningless, or futile provision.”).
State v. Aguilar 178 P.3d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State v. Aguilar 178 P.3d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
¶ 46 When construing more than one subsection of a statute, “[w]e presume the legislature did not intend to write a statute that contains a void, meaningless, or futile provision.” , see also Taylor, , 148 P.3d at 88-89 .
Callen v. Rogers 168 P.3d 907 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Callen v. Rogers 168 P.3d 907 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
“We presume the legislature did not intend to write a statute that contains a void, meaningless, or futile provision.”
Mejak v. Granville 136 P.3d 874 Ariz. 2006
Mejak v. Granville 136 P.3d 874 Ariz. 2006
State v. Casey 71 P.3d 351 Ariz. 2003
State v. Casey 71 P.3d 351 Ariz. 2003
(we avoid interpretation of statute that renders it meaningless).
State of Arizona v. Tyrone Vaughn Henry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Tyrone Vaughn Henry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Moreover, “we interpret statutes to give meaning to every word.”
State v. Paxson 49 P.3d 310 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Paxson 49 P.3d 310 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Id.; -07 , -64 (1994); , (“Orduno’s application is limited to DUIs.”).
State v. Duber 930 P.2d 502 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
State v. Duber 930 P.2d 502 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
We believe that conclusion renders subsection (D) superfluous, a finding contrary to the rules of statutory interpretation, , particularly because subsection (D) was adopted before both subsections (A) and (B) were added to the statute.
Jimenez v. Sears, Roebuck and Co. 904 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1995