Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Keenan Reed-Kaliher v. Hon. hoggat/state, 347 P.3d 136.

45 citing documents.

In Re the Marriage of quijada/dominguez 550 P.3d 153 Ariz. 2024
In Re the Marriage of quijada/dominguez 550 P.3d 153 Ariz. 2024
¶35 Further, we held that the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (the “AMMA”) is not preempted by the federal Controlled Substances Act (the “CSA”).
State of Arizona v. Daniel Louis Santillanes Ariz. 2024
State of Arizona v. Daniel Louis Santillanes Ariz. 2024
DISCUSSION ¶11 “We review questions of statutory interpretation de novo.” ¶ 5 (2019) ( ¶ 6 (2015)).
State of Arizona v. Alan Ivan Ibarra 522 P.3d 1111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
State of Arizona v. Alan Ivan Ibarra 522 P.3d 1111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
¶9 In interpreting a voter-passed initiative, our “primary objective ‘is to give effect to the intent of the electorate.’” ().
Cvs Pharmacy v. Hon. bostwick/tucson Medical Ariz. 2021
Cvs Pharmacy v. Hon. bostwick/tucson Medical Ariz. 2021
¶ 22 (2015) (“The manifest purpose of the CSA was ‘to conquer drug abuse and to control the legitimate and illegitimate traffic in controlled substances.’” (quoting Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 12 (2005))); Unif.
State v. Valentin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Valentin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶6 “AMMA permits those who meet statutory conditions to use medical marijuana.” ¶ 7 (2015).
Ariz. Chapter of the Associated Gen. Contractors of Am. v. City of Phx. 445 P.3d 2 Ariz. 2019
Ariz. Chapter of the Associated Gen. Contractors of Am. v. City of Phx. 445 P.3d 2 Ariz. 2019
¶ 17 (2015) (noting that “when possible, we harmonize apparently conflicting statutes” (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Estate of Hernandez v. Ariz. Bd.
State v. Dodd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Dodd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State of Arizona v. Rodney Christopher Jones 440 P.3d 1139 Ariz. 2019
State of Arizona v. Rodney Christopher Jones 440 P.3d 1139 Ariz. 2019
¶5 “We review questions of statutory interpretation de novo.” ¶ 6 (2015).
State v. Tagge 442 P.3d 71 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Tagge 442 P.3d 71 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
This protection “broadly immunizes qualified patients, carving out only narrow exceptions from its otherwise sweeping grant of immunity.” ¶ 8 (2015).
State v. Jones 424 P.3d 447 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Jones 424 P.3d 447 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Because AMMA was voter-initiated, our primary objective is “to give effect to the intent of the electorate.” ¶ 6 (2015) ( ¶ 11 (2006)); ¶ 7 (2012) (“[C]ourts liberally construe initiative requirements and do not interfere with the people’s right to initiate laws ‘unless the Constitution expressly and explicitly makes any departur
State of Arizona v. Andre Lee Juwaun Maestas 417 P.3d 774 Ariz. 2018
State of Arizona v. Andre Lee Juwaun Maestas 417 P.3d 774 Ariz. 2018
Reed-Kaliher v. Hoggatt , , 122 ¶ 7, , 139 (2015).
State v. Wyatt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Wyatt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Gersten v. Sun Pain Management, P.L.L.C. 395 P.3d 310 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Green Cross Medical, Inc. v. Gally 395 P.3d 302 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Green Cross Medical, Inc. v. Gally 395 P.3d 302 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Given the federal government’s lack of interest in prosecuting individuals in compliance with the AMMA, as well as a public policy that favors enforcement of the lease compliant with state law, the purported illegality here does not render the lease void as illegal, at least for purposes of a damages action.7 ¶ 21 (2015) (noting that by prohibiting AMMA-compliant marijuana use, a trial court would not be authorizing or sanctioning a violation of federal law, but merely recognizing the statutory
Gersten v. Sun Pain Management, P.L.L.C. 395 P.3d 310 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 1 , ¶ 8 , State v. Fields ex rel.
State v. Maestas 394 P.3d 21 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Maestas 394 P.3d 21 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
-23, ¶¶ 7, 17 , see also 2010 Proposition 203, § 2(G) (stating that “the purpose of this act is to protect patients with debilitating medical conditions ...
White Mountain Health Center, Inc. v. Maricopa County 386 P.3d 416 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Followed White Mountain Health Center, Inc. v. Maricopa County 386 P.3d 416 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco II 373 P.3d 549 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Ian Harvey Cheatham 375 P.3d 66 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco II 373 P.3d 549 Ariz. 2016
–23 ¶¶ 7, 17, –40 (2015); State ex rel.
State of Arizona v. Ian Harvey Cheatham 375 P.3d 66 Ariz. 2016
–23 ¶¶ 7, 17, –40 (2015).
State of Arizona v. Robert Gear 372 P.3d 287 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Robert Gear 372 P.3d 287 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Liwski 358 P.3d 605 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Liwski 358 P.3d 605 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
¶5 “We review questions of statutory interpretation de novo.”
State v. Cheatham 353 P.3d 382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Cheatham 353 P.3d 382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
122 ¶¶ 8-9, (construing A.R.S.
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
“Medical marijuana use pursuant to AMMA is lawful under Arizona law.”
State v. Hon. hancock/jennifer Ferrell 347 P.3d 142 Ariz. 2015