Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State Ex Rel. Romley v. Superior Court, 812 P.2d 985.

52 citing documents.

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
Phillips v. Garcia 351 P.3d 1105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Phillips v. Garcia 351 P.3d 1105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Romley v. Superior Court (Stewart), (noting that when the language of a rule “is not subject to different interpretations, we need look no further than that language to determine the drafters’ intent”).
Boyle v. Ford Motor Company 334 P.3d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Boyle v. Ford Motor Company 334 P.3d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Romney v. Superior Ct. (Stewart)
State of Arizona v. John Vincent Fitzgerald 303 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. John Vincent Fitzgerald 303 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2013
Balestrieri v. Balestrieri 300 P.3d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Balestrieri v. Balestrieri 300 P.3d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
¶ 7 “When construing a rule, we may look at a variety of elements, including the rule’s context, the language used, the subject matter, the historical background, the effects and consequences, and its spirit and purpose.” State ex rel Romley v. Superior Court (Stewart)
Xavier R. and Athena R. v. Ades and Joseph R. 280 P.3d 640 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Xavier R. and Athena R. v. Ades and Joseph R. 280 P.3d 640 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
(stating appellate court will give rule’s clear language “its usual, ordinary meaning unless doing so creates an absurd result”).
Rivera-Longoria v. Slayton 242 P.3d 171 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Rivera-Longoria v. Slayton 242 P.3d 171 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Preston v. Kindred Hospitals West, L.L.C. 236 P.3d 450 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Preston v. Kindred Hospitals West, L.L.C. 236 P.3d 450 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Superior Court (Stewart)
Campbell v. Barton 215 P.3d 388 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Campbell v. Barton 215 P.3d 388 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Romley v. Superior Court (Stewart), , (“[Wjhen the rule’s language is not subject to different interpretations, we need look no further than that language to determine the drafters’ intent.”).
Johnson v. STATE EX REL. DOT 213 P.3d 207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Followed Johnson v. STATE EX REL. DOT 213 P.3d 207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Romley v. Superior Court (Stewart), , (“IWJhen the rule’s language is not subject to different interpretations, we need look no further than that language to determine the drafters’ intent.
City of Phoenix v. Johnson 204 P.3d 447 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
City of Phoenix v. Johnson 204 P.3d 447 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Romley v. Superior Court (Stewart), -69 , -87 (1991).
State v. Osborn 204 P.3d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Followed State v. Osborn 204 P.3d 432 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Romley v. Superior Court (Stewart), , (As to the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, “[w]hen the rule’s language is not subject to different interpretations, we need look no further than that language to determine the drafters’ intent.
Valerie M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 195 P.3d 192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Valerie M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 195 P.3d 192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Haroutunian v. Valueoptions Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Haroutunian v. Valueoptions Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Manuel M. v. Ades, Leila M., Alayena M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Manuel M. v. Ades, Leila M., Alayena M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Catherine E. Warner v. Southwest Desert Images, LLC Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Catherine E. Warner v. Southwest Desert Images, LLC Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Powers v. Taser International, Inc. 174 P.3d 777 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Powers v. Taser International, Inc. 174 P.3d 777 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Superior Court (Stewart)
State v. Hansen 160 P.3d 166 Ariz. 2007
State v. Hansen 160 P.3d 166 Ariz. 2007
Romley v. Superior Court (Stewart), - 69, -87 (1991).
Joon Nae Kim v. Mansoori 153 P.3d 1086 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Joon Nae Kim v. Mansoori 153 P.3d 1086 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Haywood Securities, Inc. v. Ehrlich 149 P.3d 738 Ariz. 2007
Haywood Securities, Inc. v. Ehrlich 149 P.3d 738 Ariz. 2007
Short v. Petty 139 P.3d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Short v. Petty 139 P.3d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State v. Superior Court (Stewart), 168 *
State v. Aguilar 97 P.3d 865 Ariz. 2004
State v. Aguilar 97 P.3d 865 Ariz. 2004
(applying principles of statutory construction to the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure).
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Martin 69 P.3d 1000 Ariz. 2003
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Martin 69 P.3d 1000 Ariz. 2003
-69, -87 (1991); 3 Our first point of reference, of course, is the statutory language, which we expect to be “the best and most reliable index of a statute’s meaning.”
State v. Baca 926 P.2d 528 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Baca 926 P.2d 528 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Superior Court 834 P.2d 832 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Superior Court 834 P.2d 832 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992