Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Calik v. Kongable, 990 P.2d 1055.

135 citing documents.

Jeremy Sean O'Brien v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Jeremy Sean O'Brien v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
See Calik v. Kongable, 195 Ariz. 496, ¶6, (Proposition 200 prohibited imposition of jail term as condition of probation, noting that § 13-901.01(E), before its amendment, prohibited imposition of a jail term for first-time offenders who violate probation); see also Tousignant.
Cherry v. Araneta 57 P.3d 391 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Cherry v. Araneta 57 P.3d 391 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
¶ 1, 499, ¶ 13 , 1058 (1999).
Maricopa County v. Kinko's Inc. 56 P.3d 70 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Maricopa County v. Kinko's Inc. 56 P.3d 70 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
¶ 12 , for the proposition that, by adopting § 42-11127, the legislature legitimately and effectively clarified its original intent underlying former § 42-280.
Knight Transportation, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Transportation 55 P.3d 790 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Knight Transportation, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Transportation 55 P.3d 790 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Martin 49 P.3d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Martin 49 P.3d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Christian 47 P.3d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Christian 47 P.3d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Hylton 44 P.3d 1005 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Hylton 44 P.3d 1005 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
¶ 12 , (“It makes no sense for the supplemented terms of probation to be less severe than the original terms when the additional conditions are being added as a sanction for violating the original terms of probation.”); Hensley, 201 Ariz. at 80, ¶ 23 , 31 P.3d at 854 (“[T]he court shou
State v. Tousignant 43 P.3d 218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Tousignant 43 P.3d 218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Strojnik v. General Insurance Co. of America 36 P.3d 1200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Strojnik v. General Insurance Co. of America 36 P.3d 1200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Andrews v. Samaritan Health System 36 P.3d 57 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Andrews v. Samaritan Health System 36 P.3d 57 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
“Whenever possible, we will interpret two apparently conflicting statutes in a way that harmonizes them and gives rational meaning to both.” , (citation omitted), vacated on other grounds
Arpaio v. Steinle 35 P.3d 114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Arpaio v. Steinle 35 P.3d 114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
[7] ¶ 10 , ¶ 7 , (review denied Feb.
State v. Estrada 34 P.3d 356 Ariz. 2001
State v. Estrada 34 P.3d 356 Ariz. 2001
(examining the history of A.R.S.
True v. Stewart 18 P.3d 707 Ariz. 2001
State v. Guillory 18 P.3d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Guillory 18 P.3d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
at ¶ 3, 995 P.2d at ¶ 3 (citation and footnote omitted)
State v. Pereyra 18 P.3d 146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Pereyra 18 P.3d 146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Estrada 4 P.3d 438 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Estrada 4 P.3d 438 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Gray, 195 Ariz. at 277, ¶ 15 , 987 P.2d at 763 .
Foster v. Irwin 995 P.2d 272 Ariz. 2000
Foster v. Irwin 995 P.2d 272 Ariz. 2000
Stubblefield v. Trombino 4 P.3d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Stubblefield v. Trombino 4 P.3d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000