Arizona Revised Statutes
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 1-211 (2026)
Rules of construction and definitions
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official)
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
A. The rules and the definitions set forth in this chapter shall be observed in the construction of the laws of the state unless such construction would be inconsistent with the manifest intent of the legislature.
B. Statutes shall be liberally construed to effect their objects and to promote justice.
C. The rule of the common law that penal statutes shall be strictly construed has no application to these Revised Statutes. Penal statutes shall be construed according to the fair import of their terms, with a view to effect their object and to promote justice.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 113
cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1958–2025 · leading case: State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle, 379 P.3d 197 (Ariz. 2016).
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle, 379 P.3d 197 (Ariz. 2016). “” A.R.S. § 1-211(C). ¶11 When interpreting a statute, we start with the text because it is the most reliable indicator of a statute’s meaning.”
State v. Atwood, 832 P.2d 593 (Ariz. 1992). “2d at 453 ; A.R.S. § 1-211(C). As in Tittle , we decline defendant's invitation.”
Est. of McGill Ex Rel. McGill v. Albrecht, 57 P.3d 384 (Ariz. 2002). “§ 1-214 must be applied consistently with those of A.R.S. § 1-211, which require us to effect legislative intent.”
State v. Greenway, 823 P.2d 22 (Ariz. 1991). “§ 13-703(F)(8) provides that an aggravating factor exists when "[t]he defendant has been convicted of one or more other homicides, as defined in A.”
Simpson v. Owens, 85 P.3d 478 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). “3d at 116 (citation omitted); see A.R.S. §§ 1-211, 1-213 (2002). ¶ 34 The Arizona Supreme Court gave direction when it held in a capital case that, when there is a strong presumption of guilt, bail must be denied.”
Crowe v. Hickman's Egg Ranch, Inc., 41 P.3d 651 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). “The majority applies the elements suggested by the court strictly while I look at the "policy and purpose" of the statutewhat I believe is the driving force behind Aesthetic.”
State v. Arnett, 579 P.2d 542 (Ariz. 1978). “A.R.S. § 1-211 provides as follows: “§ 1-211.”
In Re Pima Cnty. Juv. Appeal No. 74802-2, 790 P.2d 723 (Ariz. 1990). “See A.R.S. § 1-211(C) (penal statutes must be construed according to the fair import of their terms); see Arizona State Board of Accountancy v.”
Riepe v. Riepe, 91 P.3d 312 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). “"); see also A.R.S. § 1-211(B) ("Statutes shall be liberally construed to effect their objects and to promote justice.”
State v. Ramos, 747 P.2d 629 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). “In addition, "A.R.S. § 1-211(A) gives us the clear direction to honor the intent of the legislature" in interpreting statutes.”
Associated Aviation Underwriters v. Wood, 98 P.3d 572 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). “”); A.R.S. § 1-211(B) (“Statutes shall be liberally construed to effect their objects and to promote justice.”
State v. Sweet, 693 P.2d 921 (Ariz. 1985). “A.R.S. § 1-211(A) gives us the clear direction to honor the intent of the legislature: “The rules and the definitions set forth in this chapter shall be observed in the construction of the laws of the state unless such construction would be inconsistent with the manifest intent…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 1-211(A) — 9 cases
State v. Ramos, 747 P.2d 629 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). “In addition, "A.R.S. § 1-211(A) gives us the clear direction to honor the intent of the legislature" in interpreting statutes.”
State v. Sweet, 693 P.2d 921 (Ariz. 1985). “A.R.S. § 1-211(A) gives us the clear direction to honor the intent of the legislature: “The rules and the definitions set forth in this chapter shall be observed in the construction of the laws of the state unless such construction would be inconsistent with the manifest intent…”
Est. of McGill Ex Rel. McGill v. Albrecht, 57 P.3d 384 (Ariz. 2002). “§ 1-214 must be applied consistently with those of A.R.S. § 1-211, which require us to effect legislative intent.”
Carefree Improvement Ass'n v. City of Scottsdale, 649 P.2d 985 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982).
Knapp v. Cardwell, 513 F. Supp. 4 (D. Ariz. 1980).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 1-211(B) — 59 cases
Crowe v. Hickman's Egg Ranch, Inc., 41 P.3d 651 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). “The majority applies the elements suggested by the court strictly while I look at the "policy and purpose" of the statutewhat I believe is the driving force behind Aesthetic.”
Riepe v. Riepe, 91 P.3d 312 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). “"); see also A.R.S. § 1-211(B) ("Statutes shall be liberally construed to effect their objects and to promote justice.”
Associated Aviation Underwriters v. Wood, 98 P.3d 572 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). “”); A.R.S. § 1-211(B) (“Statutes shall be liberally construed to effect their objects and to promote justice.”
In Re John M., 36 P.3d 772 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
Ramsey v. Arizona Registrar of Contractors, 384 P.3d 316 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 1-211(C) — 18 cases
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle, 379 P.3d 197 (Ariz. 2016). “” A.R.S. § 1-211(C). ¶11 When interpreting a statute, we start with the text because it is the most reliable indicator of a statute’s meaning.”
State v. Atwood, 832 P.2d 593 (Ariz. 1992). “2d at 453 ; A.R.S. § 1-211(C). As in Tittle , we decline defendant's invitation.”
State v. Greenway, 823 P.2d 22 (Ariz. 1991). “§ 13-703(F)(8) provides that an aggravating factor exists when "[t]he defendant has been convicted of one or more other homicides, as defined in A.”
In Re Pima Cnty. Juv. Appeal No. 74802-2, 790 P.2d 723 (Ariz. 1990). “See A.R.S. § 1-211(C) (penal statutes must be construed according to the fair import of their terms); see Arizona State Board of Accountancy v.”
State v. Peek, 195 P.3d 641 (Ariz. 2008).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.