Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Roscoe, 912 P.2d 1297.

78 citing documents.

DaimlerChrysler Services North America, LLC v. Arizona Department of Revenue 110 P.3d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
(“ ‘A well established rule of statutory construction provides that the expression of one or more items of a class indicates an intent to exclude all items of the same class which are not expressed.’ ”) ( , ); S
State v. Gonzales 80 P.3d 276 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Gonzales 80 P.3d 276 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Boynton v. Anderson 66 P.3d 88 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Boynton v. Anderson 66 P.3d 88 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
find that luring a minor for sexual exploitation is not a “dangerous crime against children.” Under that established rule of statutory construction, “the expression of one or more items of a class indicates an intent to exclude all items of the same class which are not expressed.” ¶ 11 , (quoting State v. Roscoe, 185 Ariz. *48 68, 71, ).
State v. Thompson 65 P.3d 420 Ariz. 2003
Peeples, Inc. v. Arizona State Land Department Ex Rel. Anable 59 P.3d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Peeples, Inc. v. Arizona State Land Department Ex Rel. Anable 59 P.3d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
(fundamental principle of statutory construction is that exclusion of item from a list in a statute indicates an intent to exclude all items of the same class not expressed).
State v. Fell 52 P.3d 218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Fell 52 P.3d 218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Under the established rule of statutory construction, expressio unius est exclusio alterius, “ ‘the expression of one or more items of a class indicates an intent to exclude all items of the same class which are not expressed.’”
Michael J., Jr. v. Michael J., Sr. 7 P.3d 960 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Michael J., Jr. v. Michael J., Sr. 7 P.3d 960 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Agans v. Barnd 998 P.2d 449 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Agans v. Barnd 998 P.2d 449 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Hutt 987 P.2d 218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Hutt 987 P.2d 218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
¶ 7 Arizona’s appellate courts have considered the victim’s right to decline a defense interview “absolute.”
Bolm v. Custodian of Records of Tucson Police Department 969 P.2d 200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Bolm v. Custodian of Records of Tucson Police Department 969 P.2d 200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Champlin v. Sargeant 965 P.2d 763 Ariz. 1998
Champlin v. Sargeant 965 P.2d 763 Ariz. 1998
State v. Uriarte 981 P.2d 575 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Uriarte 981 P.2d 575 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State Compensation Fund v. Superior Court 948 P.2d 499 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State Compensation Fund v. Superior Court 948 P.2d 499 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
*376 1301 (1996) (The expression of one or more items of a class indicates an intent to exclude all elements of the same class which are not expressed.).
State v. Riggs 925 P.2d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Riggs 925 P.2d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
1 Notwithstanding that some victims’ rights may be required to give way to a defendant’s due process rights, the victim’s right to decline an interview is “absolute.”
Stapleford v. Houghton 917 P.2d 703 Ariz. 1996
Followed Stapleford v. Houghton 917 P.2d 703 Ariz. 1996