Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite City of Phoenix v. SUPER. COURT, MARICOPA CTY., 696 P.2d 724.

50 citing documents.

Roberto F. v. Department of Child Safety 332 P.3d 614 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Roberto F. v. Department of Child Safety 332 P.3d 614 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
v. Superior Court, , (“Statutory construction requires that provisions of a statute be read and construed in the context of related provisions and in light of its place *396 in the statutory scheme.”).
RSP Architects, Ltd. v. Five Star Development Resort Communities, LLC 306 P.3d 93 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
RSP Architects, Ltd. v. Five Star Development Resort Communities, LLC 306 P.3d 93 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
“To arrive at the intention of the legislature, the court looks to the words, context, subject matter, effects and consequences, reason and spirit of the law.”
Ezell v. Quon 233 P.3d 645 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Ezell v. Quon 233 P.3d 645 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Co. v. Cash, Sullivan & Cross, -11 , -7 (App.1991), ¶ 7
Gamez v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 141 P.3d 794 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
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
McCandless v. United Southern Assurance Co. 953 P.2d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
McCandless v. United Southern Assurance Co. 953 P.2d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
See Rule 21(e), Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure; , (denying request for attorneys’ fees where no authority for such award cited).
Bank One, Arizona, N.A. v. Beauvais 934 P.2d 809 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Bank One, Arizona, N.A. v. Beauvais 934 P.2d 809 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
P. 21(c); , (denying request for attorneys’ fees where no authority for such award cited).
Rogers Corp. v. State Department of Revenue 927 P.2d 817 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Rogers Corp. v. State Department of Revenue 927 P.2d 817 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Cid 892 P.2d 216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Cid 892 P.2d 216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
(statute not construed to lead to absurd effect).
State v. Walker 891 P.2d 942 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Walker 891 P.2d 942 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Because statutes should not be interpreted to result in absurdities, , we hold that the second-degree escape statute merely requires the prosecution to show that defendant was under arrest for a felony at the time of the escape, not that the defendant knew the nature of the arrest or its felony classification.
Steiner v. Steiner 880 P.2d 1152 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Steiner v. Steiner 880 P.2d 1152 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Ward v. State 871 P.2d 711 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Ward v. State 871 P.2d 711 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Estate of Hernandez v. Bd. of Regents 866 P.2d 1330 Ariz. 1994
Estate of Hernandez v. Bd. of Regents 866 P.2d 1330 Ariz. 1994
Co., , 510, , 171 (1991); -76 , -28 (CtApp.
State v. Milke 865 P.2d 779 Ariz. 1993
State v. Milke 865 P.2d 779 Ariz. 1993
(“courts will avoid statutory interpretations that lead to absurd results which could not have been contemplated by the legislature”).
State v. Sanchez 846 P.2d 857 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Sanchez 846 P.2d 857 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
First Phoenix Realty Investments v. Superior Court 841 P.2d 1390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
First Phoenix Realty Investments v. Superior Court 841 P.2d 1390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
(statutory construction requires that provisions of statute be construed in the context of related provisions and in light of its place in the statutory scheme).
Flexmaster Aluminum Awning Co., Inc. v. Hirschberg 839 P.2d 1128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Flexmaster Aluminum Awning Co., Inc. v. Hirschberg 839 P.2d 1128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Goode v. Alfred 828 P.2d 1235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Goode v. Alfred 828 P.2d 1235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
In addition, to determine legislative intent, courts should look to the “words, context, subject matter, effects and consequences, reason and spirit of the law.”
Estate of Hernandez v. Arizona Board of Regents 838 P.2d 1283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Estate of Hernandez v. Arizona Board of Regents 838 P.2d 1283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
We must construe a statute “in the context of related provisions and in light of its place in the statutory scheme.”
City of Phoenix v. Phoenix Civil Service Board 818 P.2d 241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
City of Phoenix v. Phoenix Civil Service Board 818 P.2d 241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
1 L. Haire & P. Ulrich (eds.), Arizona Appellate Handbook, § 10.2.4 (1986) at 10-4.
Williams v. Williams 801 P.2d 495 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Williams v. Williams 801 P.2d 495 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
-76 , -28 (App.1985) (when interpreting statutes, courts will apply sensible construction); , (courts will apply statute in manner to avoid absurd results).
Wells Fargo Credit Corp. v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund 799 P.2d 908 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Wells Fargo Credit Corp. v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund 799 P.2d 908 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Altamirano 803 P.2d 425 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Altamirano 803 P.2d 425 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
In Re Pima County Juvenile Appeal No. 74802-2 790 P.2d 723 Ariz. 1990
Western Sun Contractors Co. v. Superior Court 766 P.2d 96 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Western Sun Contractors Co. v. Superior Court 766 P.2d 96 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Aikins v. ARIZ. DEPT. OF WATER RESOURCES 743 P.2d 946 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Aikins v. ARIZ. DEPT. OF WATER RESOURCES 743 P.2d 946 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987