Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Rodriguez, 735 P.2d 792.
- State v. Montes 245 P.3d 879 Ariz. 2011
-
State v. Montes
245 P.3d 879
Ariz. 2011
Although “the doctrine of separation of powers does not permit us to accept legislative messages regarding the meaning of its past actions,” section 2 contains no operative language, see Rios, 225 Ariz. at ___ ¶ 33, 237 P.3d at 1061.
- State v. Rios 237 P.3d 1052 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
-
State v. Rios
237 P.3d 1052
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
[7] , , support the State's contention that Chap.
- Enterprise Leasing Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 211 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
- Enterprise Leasing Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 211 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
- State of Arizona v. Walter James Mangum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
- State of Arizona v. Walter James Mangum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
- Montero v. Foreman 64 P.3d 206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
-
Montero v. Foreman
64 P.3d 206
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
(-84 , -94 (1987)) (although moot, "we nevertheless address the merits of the ...
- State v. Estrada 34 P.3d 356 Ariz. 2001
-
State v. Estrada
34 P.3d 356
Ariz. 2001
-87 , -97 (1987) (finding it “inconceivable” that the legislature could have intended the result that greater punishments attend less serious crimes).
- State v. Jenkins 970 P.2d 947 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
- State v. Jenkins 970 P.2d 947 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
- Hamilton v. State 925 P.2d 731 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
-
Hamilton v. State
925 P.2d 731
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Although our conclusion that the taxpayers failed to exhaust administrative remedies renders this appeal moot, we nevertheless address the merits of the taxpayers’ claims because “the public interest would be served by deciding the questions presented.” -84 , -94 (1987).
- State v. Green 852 P.2d 401 Ariz. 1993
- State v. Green 852 P.2d 401 Ariz. 1993
- State v. Lammie 793 P.2d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
-
Overruled
State v. Lammie
793 P.2d 134
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
where our supreme court stated: Traditionally, if a criminal statute was susceptible of different interpretations, we adopted the construction most favorable to the defendant.
- State v. Clements 776 P.2d 801 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
- State v. Clements 776 P.2d 801 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
- Johnson v. SUPERIOR COURT, PIMA COUNTY 763 P.2d 1382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
- Johnson v. SUPERIOR COURT, PIMA COUNTY 763 P.2d 1382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
- State ex rel. McDougall v. Municipal Court 745 P.2d 634 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
- State ex rel. McDougall v. Municipal Court 745 P.2d 634 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
- State v. Griffin 744 P.2d 10 Ariz. 1987
- State v. Griffin 744 P.2d 10 Ariz. 1987