Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Ring v. Taylor, 685 P.2d 121.

42 citing documents.

Sarbu v. Vertullo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Sarbu v. Vertullo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
(the superior court is in the best position to determine whether conduct influenced the judgment).
Borowsky v. Brooks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Borowsky v. Brooks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
(emphasis added; citing cases); –61 (App. 1984).
Jeremy v. v. Judith H., K.V. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Jeremy v. v. Judith H., K.V. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Ins., ¶ 10 (App. 2010) (“The word ‘and’ is a ‘conjunction connecting words or phrases expressing the idea that the latter is to be added or taken along with the first.’”) (); ¶ 11 (App. 1998) (stating the use of the conjunction “and” between two words in a 2 Absent material changes from the relevant date, we cite a statute’s current version.
Koma v. Walter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Koma v. Walter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Crown v. Ap Wireless Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Crown v. Ap Wireless Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Decision of the Court argues that this could mean the right of first refusal “commenced at the end of the initial lease term and could be exercised thereafter.” But the trial court correctly rejected this argument because, to the extent the meaning of “at” is established in Arizona law, no interpretation of the word has resulted in “at” meaning “after.” (superseded by statute) (interpreting “at the time alleged” and “at that time” to mean “the time of the alleged offense”); Blount v. Indus.
State Ex Rel. Montgomery v. Miller 321 P.3d 454 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State Ex Rel. Montgomery v. Miller 321 P.3d 454 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Bither v. Country Mutual Insurance 245 P.3d 883 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Bither v. Country Mutual Insurance 245 P.3d 883 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
The word “and” is a “conjunction connecting words or phrases expressing the idea that the latter is to be added or taken along with the first.” , , (holding that the conjunction “and” requires interpretation of the two words or phrases in combination).
State v. Claybrook 975 P.2d 1101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Claybrook 975 P.2d 1101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
¶ 15 Retroactive extrapolation is a process through which a “minimal alcohol elimination rate of .015 percent an hour is used to determine what a blood alcohol rate was at a specified time prior to the taking of a breath sample.”
In re the Maricopa County Juvenile Action 938 P.2d 67 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
In re the Maricopa County Juvenile Action 938 P.2d 67 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
“The cardinal principle of statutory interpretation is that we must follow the plain and natural meaning of the statute to determine what the legislature intended.”
Taylor v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 913 P.2d 1092 Ariz. 1996
Taylor v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 913 P.2d 1092 Ariz. 1996
Barry & Sewall Industrial Supply Co. v. Estate of Barry 910 P.2d 657 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Barry & Sewall Industrial Supply Co. v. Estate of Barry 910 P.2d 657 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Taylor v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 893 P.2d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Taylor v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 893 P.2d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
The facts are set out in greater detail in our first opinion
Taylor v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 854 P.2d 1134 Ariz. 1993
Taylor v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 854 P.2d 1134 Ariz. 1993
Wilkinson v. State 838 P.2d 1358 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Wilkinson v. State 838 P.2d 1358 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
That phrase, given its plain and natural meaning, , means rules which relate or refer to inmates alone.
State v. Salazar 774 P.2d 1360 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Salazar 774 P.2d 1360 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. White 747 P.2d 613 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. White 747 P.2d 613 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
710 (1972) (since evidence was ample for conviction, no otherwise permissible presumptions need be relied upon in that conviction); , (another panel of this court held that if evidence was sufficient to show a certain BAC at time of arrest, jury instruction and consideration of that issue was proper).
Willow Creek Leasing, Inc. v. Bartzen 742 P.2d 840 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Willow Creek Leasing, Inc. v. Bartzen 742 P.2d 840 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
we stated: The cardinal principle of statutory interpretation is that we must follow the plain and natural meaning of the statute to determine what the legislature intended.
Cassell v. General Motors Corp. 740 P.2d 496 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Cassell v. General Motors Corp. 740 P.2d 496 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
GMC complains because the trial court precluded it from presenting evidence on either the fact or the terms of the settlement between Paulin and the Cassells
Logan v. Brown 725 P.2d 1130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Logan v. Brown 725 P.2d 1130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Short v. Riley 724 P.2d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Short v. Riley 724 P.2d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Ring v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 708 P.2d 457 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Ring v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 708 P.2d 457 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985