Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite O'Malley Lumber Co. v. Riley, 613 P.2d 629.

37 citing documents.

Sun Lakes v. state/ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Sun Lakes v. state/ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
of Maricopa, -10, ¶ 31 (1999) (citing O’ abrogated on other grounds by, Hayes v. Cont’l Ins.
siete/mesquite v. ador/mar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
siete/mesquite v. ador/mar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Of Maricopa, -10, ¶ 31 (1999) (quoting O’ abrogated on other grounds by Hayes v. Continental Ins.
San Carlos Apache Tribe v. Superior Court 972 P.2d 179 Ariz. 1999
San Carlos Apache Tribe v. Superior Court 972 P.2d 179 Ariz. 1999
When an amendment is enacted “after a considerable length of time and constitutes a clear and distinct change of the *210 operative language, it is an indication of an intent to change rather than clarify the previous statute.” O’ , (abrogated on other grounds by Hayes v. Continental Ins.
State Ex Rel. Arizona Department of Revenue v. Phoenix Lodge No. 708, Loyal Order of Moose, Inc. 928 P.2d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State Ex Rel. Arizona Department of Revenue v. Phoenix Lodge No. 708, Loyal Order of Moose, Inc. 928 P.2d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Citing O’ the Lodge tells us we must disregard them because they were not part of the record before the tax court.
Weekly v. City of Mesa 888 P.2d 1346 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Weekly v. City of Mesa 888 P.2d 1346 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Hayes v. Continental Insurance 872 P.2d 668 Ariz. 1994
Hayes v. Continental Insurance 872 P.2d 668 Ariz. 1994
E.C. Garcia & Co. v. Arizona State Department of Revenue 875 P.2d 169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Greenway 823 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1991
State v. Greenway 823 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1991
See also O’ , (when language of statute is plain, there’s no need to resort to rules of statutory interpretation).
Potter v. H. Kern Wisner, M.D., P.C. 823 P.2d 1339 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Potter v. H. Kern Wisner, M.D., P.C. 823 P.2d 1339 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Because this evidence was not introduced at trial, this court cannot consider the panel decision in deciding the issue before us. O’
Rowe International, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 796 P.2d 924 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Rowe International, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 796 P.2d 924 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
See also O’ , (legislative amendment which dis-tinctly changes the operative language indicative of intent to change rather than clarify previous statute).
Bianco v. Patterson 768 P.2d 204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Bianco v. Patterson 768 P.2d 204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Consolidated Roofing and Supply Co., , O’
Columbia Group, Inc. v. HOMEOWNERS ASS'N 727 P.2d 352 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Columbia Group, Inc. v. HOMEOWNERS ASS'N 727 P.2d 352 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State v. Sweet 693 P.2d 921 Ariz. 1985
State v. Sweet 693 P.2d 921 Ariz. 1985
O’ , suggests relevant elements of statutory history to use in determining whether the legislature intended to clarify or change a statute: “[I]f the legislative amendment is made after a considerable lapse of time and constitutes a clear and distinct change of the operative language, i
State v. Barnett 691 P.2d 683 Ariz. 1984
State v. Barnett 691 P.2d 683 Ariz. 1984
But cf. O’ , (“[I]f legislative amendment is made after a considerable lapse of time and constitutes a clear and distinct change in the operative language, it is an indication of an intent to change rather than clarify the statute).
Consolidated Roofing & Supply Co. v. Grimm 682 P.2d 457 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Consolidated Roofing & Supply Co. v. Grimm 682 P.2d 457 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
STATE FARM MUT. AUTO. v. Agency Rent-A-Car, Inc. 677 P.2d 1309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
STATE FARM MUT. AUTO. v. Agency Rent-A-Car, Inc. 677 P.2d 1309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Agency Rent-A-Car, Inc. 677 P.2d 1309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Agency Rent-A-Car, Inc. 677 P.2d 1309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Barrio v. San Manuel Division Hospital for Magma Copper Co. 692 P.2d 290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Barrio v. San Manuel Division Hospital for Magma Copper Co. 692 P.2d 290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Ramos 648 P.2d 119 Ariz. 1982
State v. Ramos 648 P.2d 119 Ariz. 1982

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by