Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Steve Gallardo v. State of Arizona, 336 P.3d 717.

39 citing documents.

Maricopa v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Maricopa v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
§ 48- 5541.01(A), (K)(1); ¶ 4 (2014) (finding that the population of Maricopa Country is greater than three million).
Wood v. Coconino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Wood v. Coconino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
No. 15, 395 U.S. 621, 627–28 (1969); ¶ 9 (2014) (noting that “if a law burdens fundamental rights .
Az Petition Partners LLC v. Hon. thompson/state 530 P.3d 1144 Ariz. 2023
Az Petition Partners LLC v. Hon. thompson/state 530 P.3d 1144 Ariz. 2023
But whatever the applicability of such a presumption in other contexts, “if a law burdens fundamental rights, such as free speech or freedom of religion, any presumption in its favor falls away.” ¶ 9 (2014).
Coleman v. Amon 498 P.3d 638 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Coleman v. Amon 498 P.3d 638 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Warren Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Warren Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State of Arizona v. Christopher Arevalo 470 P.3d 644 Ariz. 2020
State of Arizona v. Christopher Arevalo 470 P.3d 644 Ariz. 2020
For instance, the Court disapproved the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard because “[d]etermining constitutionality is a question of law, which we review de novo,” and this inquiry “fundamentally differs from determining the existence of historical facts, the determination of which is subject to deference.” ¶ 8 (2014).
Johnson Utilities LLC v. Arizona Corporation Ariz. 2020
Johnson Utilities LLC v. Arizona Corporation Ariz. 2020
City of Surprise v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, ¶ 10 (2019) (statutory interpretation); ¶ 8 (2014) (constitutional questions).
Thomas P. Morrissey v. Logan Stan Garner 461 P.3d 428 Ariz. 2020
Thomas P. Morrissey v. Logan Stan Garner 461 P.3d 428 Ariz. 2020
Vangilder v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Vangilder v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Brush & Nib v. City of Phoenix Ariz. 2019
Brush & Nib v. City of Phoenix Ariz. 2019
City of Surprise v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, ¶ 10 (2019) (statutes); ¶ 8 (2014) (constitutional questions); Valley Med.
Trisha A. v. Department of Child safety/l.A./l.A. 446 P.3d 380 Ariz. 2019
Trisha A. v. Department of Child safety/l.A./l.A. 446 P.3d 380 Ariz. 2019
Brnovich v. City of Tucson , , 599-600 ¶ 45, , 674-75 (2017) ("We generally do not reach out to decide important constitutional issues or to upset established precedent when no party has raised or argued such issues."); Gallardo v. State , , 87 ¶ 9, , 720 (2014) (noting that we "presume that the legislature acts constitutionally" (internal quotation marks omitted)).
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
See Gallardo v. State , , 87 ¶ 8, , 720 (2014).
Normandin v. Encanto 425 P.3d 243 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Normandin v. Encanto 425 P.3d 243 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
“Special laws favor one person or group and disfavor others.” ¶ 10 (2014).
Biggs v. betlach/macias Ariz. 2017
Biggs v. betlach/macias Ariz. 2017
¶9 “Determining constitutionality is a question of law, which we review de novo.” ¶ 8 (2014).
State Ex Rel Brnovich v. City of tucson/dewit 399 P.3d 663 Ariz. 2017
Chamber of Commerce v. Hon. kiley/state 399 P.3d 80 Ariz. 2017
Chamber of Commerce v. Hon. kiley/state 399 P.3d 80 Ariz. 2017
-88 ¶ 9 (2014) (discussing presumption of constitutionality generally afforded to legislative enactments).
Thomas horne/kathleen Winn v. Sheila Polk 394 P.3d 651 Ariz. 2017
Thomas horne/kathleen Winn v. Sheila Polk 394 P.3d 651 Ariz. 2017
State v. Don Jacob Havatone 389 P.3d 1251 Ariz. 2017
87 ¶ 8, , 720 (2014); , 91 ¶ 32
State v. Panos 366 P.3d 1006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Panos 366 P.3d 1006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
§ 13-901(A) violates Article 4, Part 2, Section 19(7), of the Arizona Constitution because it constitutes a “special law” for “[p]unishment of crimes and misdemeanors.” Special laws favor one person or group over others by “granting them a special or exclusive immunity, privilege, or franchise.” Ariz. Downs, 130 Ariz. at 557; ¶ 10 (2014) (citing Republic Inv.
State v. Okken 364 P.3d 485 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
87-88, ¶¶ 8-9, , 720-21 (2014); Chevron Chem.
Arner v. Ryan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Arner v. Ryan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015