Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Abbott v. City of Tempe, 630 P.2d 569.

34 citing documents.

Plea v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Plea v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
(permitting city to limit prospective holiday and vacation benefits not yet earned); Bennett ex rel.
Mark Gilmore v. Kate Gallego 552 P.3d 1084 Ariz. 2024
Mark Gilmore v. Kate Gallego 552 P.3d 1084 Ariz. 2024
No. 83, ¶ 15 (App. 2009) (holding a school district’s governing board was allowed to decrease fringe benefits offered to employees under a new contract); –78 (App. 1981) (holding a city was entitled to decrease firefighters’ rate of holiday pay and accrual of vacation credits under new contract where the older contract did not provide for future employment with old benefits); Bennett ex rel.
Mba v. Scottsdale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Mba v. Scottsdale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Contreras Farms v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Contreras Farms v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
We interpret § 37–33(a) using the “same rules and principles governing the construction of statutes” with the primary goal of “ascertain[ing] and giv[ing] effect to the intent of the law-making body.”
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. 181 P.3d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. 181 P.3d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Kenneth Scott MacHado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State of Arizona v. Kenneth Scott MacHado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State v. Fell 97 P.3d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Fell 97 P.3d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
(cardinal rule in statutory interpretation is to ascertain and give effect to legislature’s intent).
State v. Ontiveros 81 P.3d 330 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Ontiveros 81 P.3d 330 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Tsinnijinnie 80 P.3d 284 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Tsinnijinnie 80 P.3d 284 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Trust v. County of Yuma 69 P.3d 510 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Trust v. County of Yuma 69 P.3d 510 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Douglass v. Gendron 20 P.3d 1174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Douglass v. Gendron 20 P.3d 1174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
¶ 10 Municipal ordinances are construed in the same manner as state statutes, , and “we apply a practical and commonsensical construction.” , 365 ¶ 8
City of Glendale v. Aldabbagh 928 P.2d 659 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
City of Glendale v. Aldabbagh 928 P.2d 659 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Wilshire Insurance v. Home Insurance 880 P.2d 1148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Wilshire Insurance v. Home Insurance 880 P.2d 1148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Bigelsen v. Arizona State Board of Medical Examiners 853 P.2d 1133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Bigelsen v. Arizona State Board of Medical Examiners 853 P.2d 1133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Marsoner v. Pima County 803 P.2d 897 Ariz. 1991
Marsoner v. Pima County 803 P.2d 897 Ariz. 1991
Tucson National Golf Club v. Norville 751 P.2d 589 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Tucson National Golf Club v. Norville 751 P.2d 589 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Fund Manager, Public Safety Personnel Retirement System v. City of Phoenix Police Department Public Safety Personnel Retirement System … 728 P.2d 1237 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Fund Manager, Public Safety Personnel Retirement System v. City of Phoenix Police Department Public Safety Personnel Retirement System … 728 P.2d 1237 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986