Arizona Supreme Court· 11/15/2001

State v. Estrada

Citations

34 P.3d 356
201 Ariz. 247
361 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 20
2001 Ariz. LEXIS 193

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

concluding that a proposed interpretation of Proposition 200 was not rational when it created unexplained inconsistencies
concluding that a proposed interpretation of Proposition 200 was not rational when it created unexplained inconsistencies
indicating that an absurd result is one that is “so irrational, unnatural, or inconvenient that it cannot be supposed to have been within the intention of persons with ordinary intelligence and discretion”
observing that a “result is absurd if it is so irrational, unnatural, or inconvenient that it cannot be supposed to have been within the intention of persons with ordinary intelligence and discretion”
observing that a “result is absurd if it is so irrational, unnatural, or inconvenient that it cannot be supposed to have been within the intention of persons with ordinary intelligence and discretion”
indicating that an absurd result is one that is “so irrational, unnatural, or inconvenient that it cannot be supposed to have been within the intention of persons with ordinary intelligence and discretion”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Jones, Feldman, Martone, McGregor, Zlaket

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

57 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

14 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.