Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite In Re Pima County Juvenile Appeal No. 74802-2, 790 P.2d 723.

78 citing documents.

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
Juvenile Appeal No. 74802-2, -34 , -32 (1990).
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle Ariz. 2016
Juvenile Appeal No. 74802-2, –34, –32 (1990).
State v. Nash Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Nash Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Appeal No. 74802-2, -28 (1990) (holding that statute which formed basis for probation revocation was not unconstitutionally vague), n.4 (1997).
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle 358 P.3d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle 358 P.3d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
-30, -28 (1990), abrogated by Getz, 189 Ariz. at 563-65, 944 P.2d at 505-07.
In Re the ESTATE OF Sanford M. BOLTON 315 P.3d 1241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
In Re the ESTATE OF Sanford M. BOLTON 315 P.3d 1241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Kyle Evan Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Kyle Evan Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Daniel Diaz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Daniel Diaz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Appeal No. 74802-2, 9 P.2d 503 (1997); (statutory language required imposition of lesser sentence for child molester even though result “defies logic”).
State v. Botkin 209 P.3d 137 Ariz. 2009
State v. Botkin 209 P.3d 137 Ariz. 2009
.” (quoting In re Pima County Juvenile Appeal No. 74802-2, )).
State v. Peek 195 P.3d 641 Ariz. 2008
State v. Peek 195 P.3d 641 Ariz. 2008
(quoting In re Pima County Juvenile Appeal No. 74802-2, ).
State v. Fischer 199 P.3d 663 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Fischer 199 P.3d 663 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Minors need protection “because they are deemed too unsophisticated to protect themselves or to consent to sexual activity.” Pima County Juve *415 nile Appeal No. 74802-2
State v. Simpson 173 P.3d 1027 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Simpson 173 P.3d 1027 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Appeal No. 74802-2, -34 , -32 (1990)
State of Arizona v. Francisco Lazaro Gonzalez, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Francisco Lazaro Gonzalez, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
“We do not sit as a second legislature to rewrite laws that may strike us as improvident.” In re Pima County Juvenile Appeal No. 74802-2, 732 (1990), P.2d 503 (1997).
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
In re Pima County Juvenile No. 74802-2
Bentivegna v. Powers Steel & Wire Products, Inc. 81 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Bentivegna v. Powers Steel & Wire Products, Inc. 81 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
In Re Moises L. 18 P.3d 1231 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
In Re Moises L. 18 P.3d 1231 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Kessler 13 P.3d 1200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Kessler 13 P.3d 1200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Appeal No. 74802-2, , citing Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448, 456 , 82 S.Ct.
In re Richard G. 995 P.2d 745 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
In re Richard G. 995 P.2d 745 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
In re Pima County Juvenile Appeal No. 74802-2
State v. Haley 978 P.2d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
State v. Haley 978 P.2d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Matter of Pima County Juvenile Appeal No. 74802-2, , 790 P.2d.
State v. Malvern 962 P.2d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
State v. Malvern 962 P.2d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
¶ 3 “It is our duty to ascertain the intent of the legislature in interpreting a statute.” , quoting In re Pima County Juvenile Appeal No. 74802-2
Stewart v. Travers 965 P.2d 67 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Stewart v. Travers 965 P.2d 67 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
App. No. 71802-2, , and Canon Sch.
State v. Getz 944 P.2d 503 Ariz. 1997
State v. Getz 944 P.2d 503 Ariz. 1997
An earlier version of the sexual abuse statute established the age of consent as fifteen, but the legislature amended the age to fourteen in 1990, presumably as a result of our decision in Matter of Pima County Juvenile Appeal No. 74802-2
State v. McLamb 932 P.2d 266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. McLamb 932 P.2d 266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Matter of Pima County Juvenile App. No. 74802-2
State v. Phillips 873 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Phillips 873 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
In re Pima County Juvenile Appeal No. 74802-2
Gonzalez v. Satrustegui 870 P.2d 1188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Gonzalez v. Satrustegui 870 P.2d 1188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Pima County Juvenile Appeal No. 74802-2, , Arizona Sec.
State v. Milke 865 P.2d 779 Ariz. 1993
State v. Milke 865 P.2d 779 Ariz. 1993
), 13-703(A) (increased sentence when first degree murder victim is under age 15), 13-1204(B) (increased sentence when aggravated assault victim is under age 15), and 13-1304(B) (increased sentence when kidnapping victim is under age 15), “[w]e cannot assume that the legislature’s failure to do so [in this statute] was a matter of inadvertence.” Matter of Pima County Juvenile Appeal No. 74.802-2

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by