Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Lake Havasu City v. Mohave County, 675 P.2d 1371.

68 citing documents.

Hub v. maricopa/ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Hub v. maricopa/ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“Double taxation occurs when the same property or person is taxed twice for the same purpose or for the same taxing period by the same taxing authority[.]” (internal citations and quotations omitted).
Xavier R. and Athena R. v. Ades and Joseph R. 280 P.3d 640 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Xavier R. and Athena R. v. Ades and Joseph R. 280 P.3d 640 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Romley, 168 Ariz. at 169, 812 P.2d at 987
LEVERAGED LAND COMPANY, LLC v. Hodges 232 P.3d 756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
LEVERAGED LAND COMPANY, LLC v. Hodges 232 P.3d 756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
(“Statutes must be given a sensible construction which will avoid absurd results.”).
State v. Munoz 228 P.3d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Munoz 228 P.3d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
We assume the House of Representatives intended to change the intended cutoff age when it voted to approve the amendment to the bill from “under the age of fifteen” to “a child the age of fifteen years or under.” , (“[W]hen the legislature amends a statute we must presume [it] intended to change existing law rather than perform a futile act.”).
State v. Young 224 P.3d 944 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Young 224 P.3d 944 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
§ 13-2316(A)(7) in accordance with its plain language contravenes the rule that “courts should give the statute a sensible construction which will accomplish legislative interest and purpose, and which will avoid absurd results.” , ( , 557, , ).
SOROKIN v. Arnold 219 P.3d 250 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
SOROKIN v. Arnold 219 P.3d 250 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
(“[W]hen the legislature amends a statute we must presume [it] intended to change existing law rather than perform a futile act.”).
Sharpe v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System 207 P.3d 741 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Sharpe v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System 207 P.3d 741 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
(“Statutes must be given a sensible construction which will avoid absurd results.”).
Pamela Manic v. Tucson City Attorney's Office Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Pamela Manic v. Tucson City Attorney's Office Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
“[W]hen the legislature amends a statute we must presume [it] intended to change existing law rather than perform a futile act.”
P & P Mehta LLC v. Jones 123 P.3d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
P & P Mehta LLC v. Jones 123 P.3d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Fearnow v. Ridenour, Swenson, Cleere & Evans, P.C. 110 P.3d 357 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Fearnow v. Ridenour, Swenson, Cleere & Evans, P.C. 110 P.3d 357 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
(court must give meaning to clear and unambiguous statutory language).
Marriage of Cook v. Cook 104 P.3d 857 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Marriage of Cook v. Cook 104 P.3d 857 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
In a circumstance “where alternate constructions are available, we should choose that which avoids constitutional difficulty.” , (citations omitted); , (“[I]f the statute is susceptible to two interpretations, one of which renders it unconstitutional, we must adopt the interpretation favoring its validity.”) (citation omitted).
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
Additionally, when legislators amend a statute, “‘we must presume they intended to change existing law rather than perform a futile act.’ ”
Jangula v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund 88 P.3d 182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Jangula v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund 88 P.3d 182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
1998 amendment has changed the meaning of § 20-673(C) is strongly supported, if not mandated, by the interpretive principle that when the legislature has amended a statute, “we must presume they intended to change existing law rather than perform a futile act.” , ( , ).
Redelsperger v. City of Avondale 87 P.3d 843 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Redelsperger v. City of Avondale 87 P.3d 843 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
A legislative body may, however, “confer authority upon an agency or department to exercise its discretion in administering the law.” , 559
Pierce v. Molet 87 P.3d 89 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Pierce v. Molet 87 P.3d 89 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Arizona Water Co. v. Arizona Department of Water Resources 73 P.3d 1267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Arizona Water Co. v. Arizona Department of Water Resources 73 P.3d 1267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Sanders 68 P.3d 434 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Sanders 68 P.3d 434 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Porter v. Triad of Arizona (L.P.) 52 P.3d 799 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Porter v. Triad of Arizona (L.P.) 52 P.3d 799 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
“[sjtatutes must be given a sensible construction which will avoid absurd results.” ¶ 15 In this case, the most sensible construction of the language “a person entitled to bring an action” is that the legislature intended it to signify the person who owned the claim in question and to distinguish tha
London Bridge Resort, Inc. v. Mohave County 27 P.3d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
London Bridge Resort, Inc. v. Mohave County 27 P.3d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
¶ 11 , (stating that in interpreting statutes, we must avoid constructions that lead to absurd results) (citations omitted); , (“Statutes must be given a sensible construction which will avoid absurd results.”) (citations omitted).
3613 Ltd. v. Department of Liquor Licenses & Control 978 P.2d 1282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
3613 Ltd. v. Department of Liquor Licenses & Control 978 P.2d 1282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
City of Tucson v. Pima County 949 P.2d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
City of Tucson v. Pima County 949 P.2d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
See, , (county board of health’s jurisdiction limited to area within county but outside city’s corporate limits); A.R.S.
Westin Tucson Hotel Co. v. State Department of Revenue 936 P.2d 183 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Westin Tucson Hotel Co. v. State Department of Revenue 936 P.2d 183 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
(stating that both “the federal and state constitutions require equal assessment of taxes.” (citation omitted)).
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
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Superior Court 882 P.2d 1285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Superior Court 882 P.2d 1285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Patterson v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Office 865 P.2d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Patterson v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Office 865 P.2d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
“Statutes must be given a sensible construction which will avoid absurd results.” , (citing School Dist.