Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Heath v. Kiger, 176 P.3d 690.

28 citing documents.

Coconino Community v. the Property Tax Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
¶ 10 (2022); ¶ 5 (2024), and unless ambiguous, apply it without resorting to other means of textual construction, ¶ 6 (2008); In re Drummond, 257 Ariz at 18, ¶ 5.
Coconino Community v. the Property Tax Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Coconino Community v. the Property Tax Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
¶ 10 (2022); ¶ 5 (2024), and unless ambiguous, apply it without resorting to other means of textual construction, ¶ 6 (2008); In re Drummond, 257 Ariz at 18, ¶ 5.
Knight v. Fontes Ariz. 2025
Knight v. Fontes Ariz. 2025
“When the language of a provision is clear and unambiguous, we apply it without resorting to other means of constitutional construction.” ¶ 6 (2008).
State of Arizona v. William Mixton Ariz. 2021
State of Arizona v. William Mixton Ariz. 2021
“When the language of a provision is clear and unambiguous, we apply it without resorting to other means of constitutional construction.” ¶ 6 (2008).
State of Arizona v. Martin Raul Soto-Fong 474 P.3d 34 Ariz. 2020
State of Arizona v. Martin Raul Soto-Fong 474 P.3d 34 Ariz. 2020
Arizonans for Second Chances v. Hobbs Ariz. 2020
Arizonans for Second Chances v. Hobbs Ariz. 2020
State v. Torres Moreno 473 P.3d 722 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Torres Moreno 473 P.3d 722 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
“Ambiguity occurs when uncertainty exists about the meaning or interpretation of a provision’s terms.” ¶ 6 (2008) (citing Hayes v. Cont’l Ins.
Saban Rent-A-Car LLC v. Ariz. Dep't of Revenue 434 P.3d 1168 Ariz. 2019
Saban Rent-A-Car LLC v. Ariz. Dep't of Revenue 434 P.3d 1168 Ariz. 2019
cf. Heath v. Kiger , , 495 ¶ 12, , 693 (2008) ("[C]ourts should avoid hypertechnical constructions that frustrate legislative intent."
State v. Jones 424 P.3d 447 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶22 While consideration of the history and purpose of the AMMA is not necessary to apply its plain language, ¶ 9 (2008) (), an construed together as though they constitute one law.”) ( ¶ 10 (App. 2005)); see also A.R.S.
James Morreno v. Hon. brickner/state/montgomery 416 P.3d 807 Ariz. 2018
James Morreno v. Hon. brickner/state/montgomery 416 P.3d 807 Ariz. 2018
A defendant like Morreno who was released on his own recognizance on a prior charge “has been ‘admitted to bail’ for purposes of [the On-Release provision].” ¶ 1 (2008).
State v. Hon. miller/martin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State of Arizona v. Jeremy Allen Matlock 350 P.3d 835 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Jeremy Allen Matlock 350 P.3d 835 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
The AMMA’s purpose is “to protect patients with debilitating medical conditions, as well as their physicians and providers, from arrest and prosecution, criminal and other penalties and property forfeiture if such patients engage in the medical use of marijuana.” Arizona Publicity Pamphlet, Ballot Propositions & Judicial Performance Review 73 (2010); (“To determine the intent of the electorate, courts may also look to the publicity pamphlet distributed at the time of the election.”).
In Re BOND FORFEITURE IN COCHISE COUNTY 307 P.3d 980 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
In Re BOND FORFEITURE IN COCHISE COUNTY 307 P.3d 980 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
We interpret constitutional provisions by determining the “‘intent of the electorate that adopted it.’” See Lee, 245 P.3d at 922
Brewer v. Rees 265 P.3d 436 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
497, ¶ 16, , 695 (2008).
State of Arizona v. John David Franklin, Sr. & John David Franklin, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. John David Franklin, Sr. & John David Franklin, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
To determine the meaning of a constitutional provision, we must determine “„the intent of the electorate that adopted it.‟”
State of Arizona v. Robert Arthur Ergonis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Robert Arthur Ergonis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010