Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Jones, 937 P.2d 310.

63 citing documents.

Trust v. County of Yuma 69 P.3d 510 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Wilson 26 P.3d 1161 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Wilson 26 P.3d 1161 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Kayer 984 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1999
State v. Kayer 984 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1999
at 466-67 (no evidence offered that could establish the level of intoxication); , (mental health expert offered inconclusive evidence related to mental illness); -50 , -81 (1997) (long-time substance abuse problems insufficient to establish the (G)(1) mitigator); , (insufficient evidence to show methamphetamine use impaired conduct on the day of the murder); , (expert testimony conflicted with respect to mental illness; (G)(1) not established); , 921
Estancia Development Associates, L.L.C. v. City of Scottsdale 993 P.2d 1051 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Estancia Development Associates, L.L.C. v. City of Scottsdale 993 P.2d 1051 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Miller, , , uncertainty about the meaning or interpretation of the statute’s terms requires the appellate court to apply methods of statutory interpretation that go beyond the statute’s literal language.
State v. Yoshida 986 P.2d 216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Yoshida 986 P.2d 216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
See, , (discussing emergency aid exception to warrant requirement of fourth amendment), cert.
City of Tucson v. Rineer 971 P.2d 207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
City of Tucson v. Rineer 971 P.2d 207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
“If the language of the statute is plain, the court looks no further.” , cert.
Mazen v. Seidel 940 P.2d 923 Ariz. 1997
Mazen v. Seidel 940 P.2d 923 Ariz. 1997
See United States v. Brand, 556 F.2d 1312 (5th Cir.1977) (police aid in emergency drug overdose); , (police checking on welfare of siblings of abuse victim enter trailer and see blood-stained towel).