Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Mejak v. Granville, 136 P.3d 874.

88 citing documents.

STATE EX REL. AZ. STR. PEST CONT. v. Taylor 224 P.3d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
STATE EX REL. AZ. STR. PEST CONT. v. Taylor 224 P.3d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Yegan 221 P.3d 1027 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Yegan 221 P.3d 1027 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
2 ¶ 18 , (finding luring is not a preparatory offense, but rather, a completed offense), superseded by statute on other grounds, 2007 Ariz. Sess.
In Re Marbella P. 221 P.3d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
In Re Marbella P. 221 P.3d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Patterson 218 P.3d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Patterson 218 P.3d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Arizona Department of Adminstration v. Cox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Arizona Department of Adminstration v. Cox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Larson 214 P.3d 429 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Larson 214 P.3d 429 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
We give meaning to each word and phrase in a statute “so that no part is rendered void, superfluous, contradictory or insignificant.” Pinal Vista Props., ¶ 10 , ¶ 9 , (“We must interpret the statute so that no provision is rendered meaningless, insignificant, or void.”).
COUNTY OF COCHISE v. SEBASTIAO FARIA and MARIA FARI Dba FARIA DAIRY Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
COUNTY OF COCHISE v. SEBASTIAO FARIA and MARIA FARI Dba FARIA DAIRY Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Chronis v. Steinle 208 P.3d 210 Ariz. 2009
Chronis v. Steinle 208 P.3d 210 Ariz. 2009
Sharpe v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System 207 P.3d 741 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Sharpe v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System 207 P.3d 741 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
¶ 9 , (“We must interpret the statute so that no provision is rendered meaningless, insignificant, or void.”).
State v. CASTRONOVA 212 P.3d 887 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. CASTRONOVA 212 P.3d 887 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
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
In Re the Marriage of Williams 200 P.3d 1043 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
In Re the Marriage of Williams 200 P.3d 1043 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State v. Alvarado 200 P.3d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Alvarado 200 P.3d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Town of Gilbert Prosecutor's Office v. Downie 189 P.3d 393 Ariz. 2008
Town of Gilbert Prosecutor's Office v. Downie 189 P.3d 393 Ariz. 2008
A. The meaning of “loss” ¶ 10 Because statutory language is the best evidence of the legislature’s intent, ¶ 8 , we begin by examining the criminal code to find the meaning of the term “loss.” Arizona’s criminal code defines “economic loss” as “any” or “all” losses, A.R.S.
State v. Barragan-Sierra 196 P.3d 879 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Barragan-Sierra 196 P.3d 879 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
RACKMASTER SYSTEMS, INC. v. Maderia 193 P.3d 314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
RACKMASTER SYSTEMS, INC. v. Maderia 193 P.3d 314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
DeVries v. State 198 P.3d 580 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
DeVries v. State 198 P.3d 580 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Harrod 183 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2008
State v. Harrod 183 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2008
State of Arizona v. Christopher Cruz Cuevas 153 P.3d 414 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Christopher Cruz Cuevas 153 P.3d 414 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
“We must interpret the statute so that no provision is rendered meaningless, insignificant, or void,” and conclude this is the most reasonable interpretation of that portion of the statute, see Powers, 23 P.3d at 671.4 ¶10 (Wash.