Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 1
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 1-213 (2026)

Words and phrases

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Words and phrases shall be construed according to the common and approved use of the language. Technical words and phrases and those which have acquired a peculiar and appropriate meaning in the law shall be construed according to such peculiar and appropriate meaning.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 226 cases (26 in the last 5 years), 1968–2025 · leading case: State v. McGill, 140 P.3d 930 (Ariz. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. McGill, 140 P.3d 930 (Ariz. 2006). · cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 1-213 (2002); State v. Raffaele, 113 Ariz.”
State v. Greenway, 823 P.2d 22 (Ariz. 1991). · cites it 4× “" A.R.S. § 1-213. The plain meaning of the statute reads that if a defendant has been convicted of one or more other homicides, and this conviction arose out of the commission of the offense, the homicide conviction is an aggravating factor that the State could allege and the…”
State v. Arnett, 579 P.2d 542 (Ariz. 1978). · cites it 4× “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.”
Yollin v. City of Glendale, 191 P.3d 1040 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 1-213 (2002); Airport Props, v. Maricopa County, 195 Ariz.”
State v. Barnett, 691 P.2d 683 (Ariz. 1984). · cites it 3× “See also A.R.S. § 1-213. 1 In this case, the trial court’s instructions on assault and aggravated assault were derived from A.”
Carrow Co. v. Lusby, 804 P.2d 747 (Ariz. 1990). · cites it 4× “To determine whether these statutes, particularly § 24-502, govern the liability of livestock owners to motorists injured in collisions with cattle, we examine the statutory language chosen by the legislature.”
Town of Gilbert Prosecutor's Off. v. Downie, 189 P.3d 393 (Ariz. 2008). · cites it 4× “1997) (defining "loss" to mean "the act of losing possession of something" or "an amount or number lost"); see also A.R.S. § 1-213 (2002) (requiring that words be given their ordinary meaning).”
State v. Cox, 174 P.3d 265 (Ariz. 2007). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 1-213 (2002) (“Words and phrases shall be construed according to the common and approved use of the language.”
Bentley v. Bldg. Our Future, 172 P.3d 860 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 4× “” A.R.S. § 1-213 (2002). Our review of the readily available sources reflects that the term “same” means “identical” and not, as Bentley/Childress contend, a “kind or species” or “similar,” nor, as the trial court held, “closely related,” “furthering the same purpose,”…”
State v. Stroud, 103 P.3d 912 (Ariz. 2005). · cites it 2× “1999); see also A.R.S. § 1-213 (2002) (requiring that words in statutes “be construed according to the common and approved use of the language”); State v.”
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., 105 P.3d 1163 (Ariz. 2005). · cites it 2× “; see also A.R.S. § 1-213 (2002) (requiring that words be construed according to their common meaning); State v.”
State v. Regenold, 249 P.3d 337 (Ariz. 2011). · cites it 4× “3 (1983); see also A.R.S. § 1-213 ("Words and phrases shall be construed according to the common and approved use of the language.”
Show all 226 citing cases →
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.