DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Riggs, 942 P.2d 1159.

105 citing documents.

  • State v. Starr 213 P.3d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • State v. Starr 213 P.3d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    If the language is clear and unambiguous, “we must give effect to that language and need not employ other rules of statutory construction.”
  • Jones v. Paniagua 212 P.3d 133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • Jones v. Paniagua 212 P.3d 133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    The most reliable indicator of that intent is the statutory language, and if it is “[ejlear and unambiguous, we must give effect to that language and need not employ other rules of statutory construction.” , see also, ¶ 8
  • State v. Fischer 199 P.3d 663 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
  • State v. Fischer 199 P.3d 663 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
    Where language of a statute is plain on its face, we “give effect to that language and need not employ other rules of statutory construction.” 9
  • 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
    When “a statute’s language is clear *38 and unambiguous, we must give effect to that language and need not employ other rules of statutory construction.” , see also Cundiff v. State Farm Mut.
  • State v. Cox 174 P.3d 265 Ariz. 2007
  • State v. Cox 174 P.3d 265 Ariz. 2007
    § 1-213 (2002) (“Words and phrases - 8 - shall be construed according to the common and approved use of the language.”)
  • State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Rayes 141 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
  • State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Rayes 141 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
  • P.M. v. Gould 136 P.3d 223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
  • P.M. v. Gould 136 P.3d 223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
    It is well- *546 accepted that “if, in a given case, the victim’s state constitutional rights conflict with a defendant’s federal constitutional rights to due process and effective cross-examination, the victim’s rights must yield.” , citing Roper, 172 Ariz. at 236 , 836 P.2d at 449 .
  • State of Arizona v. Jay David Ramsey, Sr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
  • State of Arizona v. Jay David Ramsey, Sr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
    ¶¶ 15-16, (courts may not “amend[] [a] statute to require proof of elements not set forth by the legislature,” and “[i]n the end, a statute’s language is the most reliable index of its meaning”).
  • Renee Antonio Fragoso v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
  • Renee Antonio Fragoso v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
  • In Re Leopoldo L. 99 P.3d 578 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • In Re Leopoldo L. 99 P.3d 578 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • Phillips v. Araneta 93 P.3d 480 Ariz. 2004
  • Phillips v. Araneta 93 P.3d 480 Ariz. 2004
    Furthermore, given that a defendant’s right to remain silent includes the right not to be questioned about the exercise of that right, Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 618-19 (1976); State v. Riggs, 189 Ariz. 327, 330, permitting the state to offer evidence that the defendant refused to comply with a court-ordered expert evaluation could pose constitutional problems that we need not address today.
  • O'CONNOR v. Hyatt 87 P.3d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • O'CONNOR v. Hyatt 87 P.3d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • State v. Givens 76 P.3d 457 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
  • State v. Givens 76 P.3d 457 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
  • Galati v. America West Airlines, Inc. 69 P.3d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • Galati v. America West Airlines, Inc. 69 P.3d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • State v. Christian 47 P.3d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • State v. Christian 47 P.3d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • State v. Martinez 47 P.3d 1145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • Followed State v. Martinez 47 P.3d 1145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • State v. Cox 37 P.3d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • State v. Cox 37 P.3d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • State v. Seyrafi 32 P.3d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • State v. Seyrafi 32 P.3d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • Norgord v. State Ex Rel. Berning 33 P.3d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
  • Norgord v. State Ex Rel. Berning 33 P.3d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
  • State v. Tschilar 27 P.3d 331 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • State v. Tschilar 27 P.3d 331 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • True v. Stewart 18 P.3d 707 Ariz. 2001
  • State v. Bomar 19 P.3d 613 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • State v. Bomar 19 P.3d 613 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
    “We look primarily to the language of the statute itself and give effect to the statutory terms in accordance with their commonly accepted meanings.”
  • State v. Pereyra 18 P.3d 146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • State v. Pereyra 18 P.3d 146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • State v. Wood 8 P.3d 1189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • State v. Wood 8 P.3d 1189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
    When “a statute’s language is clear and unambiguous, we must give effect to that language and need not employ other rules of statutory construction.”
  • 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
  • State v. Thomas 996 P.2d 113 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999