DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Phoenix of Hartford, Inc. v. Harmony Restaurants, Inc., 560 P.2d 441.

42 citing documents.

  • State v. Hons. brearcliffe/vasquez 525 P.3d 1085 Ariz. 2023
  • State v. Hons. brearcliffe/vasquez 525 P.3d 1085 Ariz. 2023
    of Hartford, Inc. v. Harmony Rests., Inc., ).
  • State v. McCartney 493 P.3d 905 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • State v. McCartney 493 P.3d 905 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    Id.6 ¶16 Construing § 13-805(C)(1) in this manner is consistent with the rule that “[o]ur rules of procedure and statutes should be harmonized wherever possible and read in conjunction with each other.” Phoenix of Hartford, Inc. v. Harmony Rests., Inc.
  • Duff v. Lee 439 P.3d 1199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
  • Duff v. Lee 439 P.3d 1199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
    of Hartford, Inc. v. Harmony Rests., Inc. , , 258, , 442 (App. 1977) ).
  • Brenda D. v. Dep't of Child Safety 410 P.3d 419 Ariz. 2018
  • Brenda D. v. Dep't of Child Safety 410 P.3d 419 Ariz. 2018
    ¶21 In addition to making part of Rule 66(D)(2) meaningless, Brenda’s interpretation contravenes the principle that “[r]ules and statutes should be harmonized wherever possible and read in conjunction with each other.” ¶ 7 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Phoenix of Hartford, Inc. v. Harmony Rests., Inc., ).
  • State v. Hon. hegyi/rasmussen 378 P.3d 428 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Hon. hegyi/rasmussen 378 P.3d 428 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    ¶10 Moreover, when interpreting rules and statutes, they “should be harmonized wherever possible and read in conjunction with each other.” ¶ 7, (quoting Phoenix of Hartford, Inc. v. Harmony Rests., Inc., ).
  • In Re Edgar D. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • In Re Edgar D. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    “Our rules of procedure and statutes should be harmonized whenever possible and read in conjunction with each other.” Phoenix of Hartford, Inc. v. Harmony Restaurants, Inc.
  • Marisol Metzler v. Bci Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Los Angeles 310 P.3d 9 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
  • Marisol Metzler v. Bci Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Los Angeles 310 P.3d 9 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
    of Hartford, Inc. v. Harmony Rests., Inc.
  • Hall v. READ DEVELOPMENT, INC. 274 P.3d 1211 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • Hall v. READ DEVELOPMENT, INC. 274 P.3d 1211 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
    See Drozda, 181 Ariz. at 85 , 887 P.2d at 615 (construing Rule 68 together with § 12-341 and stating that “[o]ur rules of procedure and statutes should be harmonized wherever possible and read in conjunction with each other”) (quoting Phoenix of Hartford, Inc. v. Harmony Rests., Inc., , )).
  • State v. Lewis 233 P.3d 625 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • State v. Lewis 233 P.3d 625 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    However, “[r]ules and statutes ‘should be harmonized wherever possible and read in conjunction with each other.’ ” ¶ 7 , (quoting Phoenix of Hartford, Inc. v. Harmony Rests., Inc., , ).
  • Ritchie v. Salvatore Gatto Partners, L.P. 222 P.3d 920 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • Ritchie v. Salvatore Gatto Partners, L.P. 222 P.3d 920 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    (“[I]n construing court rules, we apply principles of statutory construction.”); Phoenix of Hartford, Inc. v. Harmony Rest., Inc., , (“Our rules of procedure and statutes should be harmonized wherever possible and read in conjunction with each other.”).
  • 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
    Rules and statutes “should be harmonized wherever possible and read in conjunction with each other.” Phoenix of Hartford, Inc. v. Harmony Rests., Inc.
  • Haroutunian v. Valueoptions Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
  • Haroutunian v. Valueoptions Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
    ¶25 As with statutes, court rules “‘should be harmonized wherever possible and read in conjunction with each other.’” Hansen, 160 P.3d at 168, quoting Phoenix of Hartford, Inc. v. Harmony Rests., Inc., see also Robson Ranch Mountains, (courts seek to harmonize and attain consistency among related statutory provisions in context of overall statutory scheme).
  • State v. Hansen 160 P.3d 166 Ariz. 2007
  • State v. Hansen 160 P.3d 166 Ariz. 2007
    Rules and statutes “should be harmonized wherever possible and read in conjunction with each other.” Phoenix of Hartford, Inc. v. Harmony Rests., Inc.
  • Kenneth T. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 128 P.3d 773 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
  • Kenneth T. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 128 P.3d 773 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
    McDougall v. Superior Court (West), (quoting Phoenix of Hartford, Inc. v. Harmony Rests., Inc., , ).
  • Pima County v. Hogan 3 P.3d 1058 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
  • Pima County v. Hogan 3 P.3d 1058 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
    Phoenix of Hartford, Inc. v. Harmony Restaurants, Inc.
  • Drozda v. McComas 887 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • Criticized Drozda v. McComas 887 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
    Here, “[o]ur rules of procedure and statutes should be harmonized whenever possible and read in conjunction with each other.” Phoenix of Hartford, Inc. v. Harmony Restaurants, Inc., , see also State ex rel.
  • Groat v. Equity American Insurance 884 P.2d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • Groat v. Equity American Insurance 884 P.2d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
    Phoenix of Hartford, Inc. v. Harmony Restaurants, Inc.
  • State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Superior Court 843 P.2d 1277 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Superior Court 843 P.2d 1277 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
    “Our rules of procedure and statutes should be harmonized wherever possible and réad in conjunction with each other.” Phoenix of Hartford, Inc. v. Harmony Restaurants, Inc.
  • SCA Construction Supply v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 746 P.2d 22 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • SCA Construction Supply v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 746 P.2d 22 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
    Phoenix of Hartford, Inc. v. Harmony Restaurants, Inc.
  • Hill Bros. Chemical Co. v. Grandinetti 597 P.2d 987 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
  • Hill Bros. Chemical Co. v. Grandinetti 597 P.2d 987 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
    In Phoenix of Hartford, Inc. v. Harmony Restaurants, Inc., , this Court held that service upon a foreign insurance company could only be made by service upon the Director of Insurance pursuant to A.R.S.
  • Banfi v. State 589 P.2d 475 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
  • Banfi v. State 589 P.2d 475 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
    Phoenix of Hartford, Inc. v. Harmony Restaurants, Inc.