Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Marlar v. State, 666 P.2d 504.

51 citing documents.

Simms v. Simms 567 P.3d 92 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Simms v. Simms 567 P.3d 92 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Miles L. Kaufman v. John Halikowski, Director, Arizona Department of Transportation Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
Miles L. Kaufman v. John Halikowski, Director, Arizona Department of Transportation Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
Brady v. ades/esa Tax Unit Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Brady v. ades/esa Tax Unit Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
R6-3-1720(B)(4) to “further the statutory policy contained in its enabling legislation.”
Simms v. Simms Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Simms v. Simms Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Stinnett v. Az Vmeb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Stinnett v. Az Vmeb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Sec., ¶ 13 (App. 2013) ().
Coombs v. Maricopa County Special Health Care District 387 P.3d 743 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
In Re C.D. 377 P.3d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
In Re C.D. 377 P.3d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
¶10 First, statutes are “to be given such an effect that no clause, sentence or word is rendered superfluous, void, contradictory, or insignificant.” (legislature does not enact statutes containing provisions that are redundant or trivial).
Cooke v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 302 P.3d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Cooke v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 302 P.3d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Similarly, administrative regulations are reviewed like statutes, Stapert, 210 Ariz. at 179, ¶ 7 , 108 P.3d at 958 , and we interpret a regulation to “further the statutory policy contained in its enabling legislation.” , see also Dioguardi v. Superior Court (Ariz. Bd.
McKesson Corp. v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System 286 P.3d 784 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
McKesson Corp. v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System 286 P.3d 784 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
(recognizing that a regulation should be construed so that no “clause, sentence or word is rendered superfluous, void, contradictory, or insignificant”).
AIDA RENTA TRUST v. Maricopa County 212 P.3d 941 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
AIDA RENTA TRUST v. Maricopa County 212 P.3d 941 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
§ 12-348 (historical and statutory notes); , 413 n. *, , 513 n. * (App.1983) (explaining that § 12-348 was expressly intended to apply to pending cases when first adopted in 1981).
Liberty Insurance Underwriters, Inc. v. Weitz Co. 158 P.3d 209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Liberty Insurance Underwriters, Inc. v. Weitz Co. 158 P.3d 209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
(rules have “the same effect and force as a ‘law5 ”).
DaimlerChrysler Services North America, LLC v. Arizona Department of Revenue 110 P.3d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
DaimlerChrysler Services North America, LLC v. Arizona Department of Revenue 110 P.3d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Raby 65 P.3d 458 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Raby 65 P.3d 458 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Davis, 197 Ariz. at 530, ¶ 14 , 4 P.3d at 1073 .
Kimble v. City of Page 20 P.3d 605 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Kimble v. City of Page 20 P.3d 605 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Whiteco Outdoor Advertising v. City of Tucson 972 P.2d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Whiteco Outdoor Advertising v. City of Tucson 972 P.2d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Murphy, 163 Ariz. at 574 , 789 P.2d at 1075
Rice v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 901 P.2d 1242 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Rice v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 901 P.2d 1242 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Guzman v. Guzman 854 P.2d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Guzman v. Guzman 854 P.2d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Cochise County v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System 825 P.2d 968 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Cochise County v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System 825 P.2d 968 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
U.S. Parking Systems v. City of Phoenix 772 P.2d 33 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
U.S. Parking Systems v. City of Phoenix 772 P.2d 33 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Fagner v. Heckler, 779 F.2d 541 (9th Cir.1985)
Porterfield v. Van Boening 744 P.2d 468 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Porterfield v. Van Boening 744 P.2d 468 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Sahf v. Lake Havasu City Ass'n for the Retarded & Handicapped 721 P.2d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Sahf v. Lake Havasu City Ass'n for the Retarded & Handicapped 721 P.2d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
CORTARO WATER USERS'ASS'N v. Steiner 714 P.2d 807 Ariz. 1986
CORTARO WATER USERS'ASS'N v. Steiner 714 P.2d 807 Ariz. 1986
the Department of Economic Security argued it was not liable for attorneys' fees pursuant to this exemption.
Cortaro Water Users' Ass'n v. Steiner 714 P.2d 807 Ariz. 1986
Cortaro Water Users' Ass'n v. Steiner 714 P.2d 807 Ariz. 1986
the Department of Economic Security argued it was not liable for attorneys’ fees pursuant to this exemption.
Black Cloud Building Corp. v. Maricopa County 716 P.2d 424 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Black Cloud Building Corp. v. Maricopa County 716 P.2d 424 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Inspiration Consolidated Copper Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 709 P.2d 573 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Inspiration Consolidated Copper Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 709 P.2d 573 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Worth v. Board of Pardons and Paroles 703 P.2d 1246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985