Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State of Arizona Ex Rel. Montgomery v. Hrach Shilgevorkyan, 322 P.3d 160.

121 citing documents.

Phoenix v. Orbitz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Montgomery v. Harris (Shilgevorkyan), ¶ 8 (2014) (citation omitted).
State v. Aulbach Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Hon. brain/hu 422 P.3d 1065 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Hon. brain/hu 422 P.3d 1065 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Aulbach Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
he does so only to show that “the concentration level of meth in someone’s system cannot be relied on to establish impairment,” not to challenge whether any substance in his system was impairing.
Leon v. Marner 421 P.3d 664 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Leon v. Marner 421 P.3d 664 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Montgomery v. Harris , , ¶ 7, (review granted "because whether § 28-1381(A)(3) applies to non-impairing metabolites presents a recurring issue of statewide importance"); Fields , , ¶ 4, (special action review appropriate to address recurring legal questions of statewide importance on which lower
State v. Butner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Butner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶2 Butner argues that the trial court must vacate the three enhanced sentences because State v. Superior Court (Shilgevorkyan), P.3d 160 (2014), constituted a significant change in the law warranting such action if applied retroactively.1 In Shilgevorkyan, our supreme court held a person cannot be convicted of driving under the influence “based merely on the presence of a non-impairing metabolite that may reflect the prior usage of mariju
State v. Ware Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Ware Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
constitutes a “significant change in the law that if determined to apply to defendant’s case would probably overturn the defendant’s conviction or sentence,” Ariz. R. Crim.
Ishak v. McClennen Ex Rel. County of Maricopa 388 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Ishak v. McClennen Ex Rel. County of Maricopa 388 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Robbins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Robbins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle 379 P.3d 197 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle 379 P.3d 197 Ariz. 2016
¶ 13 , (stating that although statutory title headings are not part of the law, they can aid in its interpretation).
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle Ariz. 2016
¶ 13, (stating that 5 STATE V. HOLLE Opinion of the Court although statutory title headings are not part of the law, they can aid in its interpretation).
State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco II 373 P.3d 549 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco II 373 P.3d 549 Ariz. 2016
Adrian E. v. Department of Child Safety 369 P.3d 264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Adrian E. v. Department of Child Safety 369 P.3d 264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Kresock v. Gordon Ex Rel. County of Maricopa 370 P.3d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Kresock v. Gordon Ex Rel. County of Maricopa 370 P.3d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 8 (2014) (“’[T]he best and most reliable index of a statute’s meaning is its language and, when the language is clear and unequivocal, it is determinative of the statute’s construction.’”) ( ¶ 7 (2007)); ¶ 11 (2003) (“The court must g
Amanda Watts v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation 365 P.3d 944 Ariz. 2016
Amanda Watts v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation 365 P.3d 944 Ariz. 2016
Montgomery v. Harris (Shilgevorkyan), ¶ 9
State v. Decker 365 P.3d 954 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Decker 365 P.3d 954 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Montgomery v. Harris (Shilgevorkyan), ¶ 8 (2014); ¶ 6 (2014); see also A.R.S.
Dbt Yuma LLC v. Yuma County Airport Authority 361 P.3d 379 Ariz. 2015
Dbt Yuma LLC v. Yuma County Airport Authority 361 P.3d 379 Ariz. 2015
Montgomery v. Harris (Shilgevorkyan), ¶ 9, see Prescott Newspapers, Inc. v. Yavapai Cty.
dobson/anderson v. Hon. mcclennen/mesa Prosecutor 361 P.3d 374 Ariz. 2015
dobson/anderson v. Hon. mcclennen/mesa Prosecutor 361 P.3d 374 Ariz. 2015
Montgomery v. Harris (Shilgevorkyan), ¶ 24
Arizona Department of Water Resources v. McClennen 360 P.3d 1023 Ariz. 2015
adwr/freeport v. Hon. mcclennen/mohave County Ariz. 2015
Arizona Department of Water Resources v. McClennen 360 P.3d 1023 Ariz. 2015
Montgomery v. Harris (Shilgevorkyan), , 345 ¶ 12
adwr/freeport v. Hon. mcclennen/mohave County Ariz. 2015
Montgomery v. Harris (Shilgevorkyan), ¶ 12
K.D. v. Hoffman 359 P.3d 1022 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
K.D. v. Hoffman 359 P.3d 1022 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Ashlee W. v. Dcs, E.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Ashlee W. v. Dcs, E.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
n.1, ¶ 1 (2014); Ariz. Rev. Stat. (“A.R.S.”) § 13-3401(4)(b).
Cecilia M Lewis Et Vir v. Ray C Debord Et Ux 356 P.3d 314 Ariz. 2015
Cecilia M Lewis Et Vir v. Ray C Debord Et Ux 356 P.3d 314 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco II 359 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco II 359 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
and therefore its scent alone does not disclose whether a crime has occurred.
State v. Jurden 352 P.3d 455 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Jurden 352 P.3d 455 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
*427 345, ¶ 12 , (statute is ambiguous when reasonably susceptible to differing interpretations); ¶¶ 7-8 , (ambiguity exists when statute can be reasonably read in two ways).
State of Arizona v. Christepher E. Lua 350 P.3d 805 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Christepher E. Lua 350 P.3d 805 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Angelica Marlene Werderman 350 P.3d 846 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015