Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite In Re Estate of Thelen, 450 P.2d 123.
-
Chandler v. Roosevelt
Ariz. 2026
(quoting In re Thelen’s Estate, –61 (1969)); see also Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 318 (2012) (“Presumption Against Change in Common Law: A statute will be construed to alter the common law only when that disposition is clear.”).
- Windrose Estates Homeowners Association v. Justin T. Wright; Midland Funding, Llc... Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
-
Windrose Estates Homeowners Association v. Justin T. Wright; Midland Funding, Llc...
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
Owners Ass’n, (quoting In re Thelen’s Estate, -61 (1969)).
- Gabriel Garibay v. Hon. johnson/fox 565 P.3d 236 Ariz. 2025
-
Gabriel Garibay v. Hon. johnson/fox
565 P.3d 236
Ariz. 2025
(quoting In re Thelen’s Est., –61 (1969)); see also § 1-201 (adopting the common law to the extent it is “not repugnant to or inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States or the constitution or laws of this state”).
- State of Arizona v. Sammantha Lucille Rebecca Allen 513 P.3d 282 Ariz. 2022
-
State of Arizona v. Sammantha Lucille Rebecca Allen
513 P.3d 282
Ariz. 2022
Owners’ Ass’n, ¶ 12 (2004) (quoting In re Thelen’s Estate, –61 (1969)).
- Beck v. Hy-Tech Performance, Inc. 340 P.3d 433 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
-
Beck v. Hy-Tech Performance, Inc.
340 P.3d 433
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
§ 1-201 (2002); see also Pleak v. Entrada Property Owners’ Ass’n, , 422, ¶ 12, , 835 (2004) (“Absent a clear manifestation of legislative intent to abrogate the common law, we interpret statutes with ‘every intendment in favor of consistency with the common law.’ ” (quoting In re Thelen’s Estate, -61 , -27 (1969))).
- Qwest Corp. v. City of Chandler 217 P.3d 424 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
-
Qwest Corp. v. City of Chandler
217 P.3d 424
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
We have more recently affirmed that we will not presume that our Legislature has repudiated the common law “without a clear manifestation that such was its intent.” In re Thelen’s Estate, , see also Pleak v. Entrada Prop.
- Urias v. PCS Health Systems, Inc. 118 P.3d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
-
Urias v. PCS Health Systems, Inc.
118 P.3d 29
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Owners’ Ass’n, , 422, ¶ 12, , 835 (2004) (“Absent a clear manifestation of legislative intent to abrogate the common law, we interpret statutes with ‘every intendment in favor of consistency with the common law.’ ”) (quoting In re Thelen’s Estate, -61 , -27 (1969)).
- Pleak v. ENTRADA PROPERTY OWNERS'ASS'N 87 P.3d 831 Ariz. 2004
-
Pleak v. ENTRADA PROPERTY OWNERS'ASS'N
87 P.3d 831
Ariz. 2004
Absent a clear manifestation of legislative intent to abrogate the common law, we interpret statutes with “every intendment in favor of consistency with the common law.” In re Thelen’s Estate, -61, -27 (1969).
- Hayes v. Continental Insurance 872 P.2d 668 Ariz. 1994
-
Hayes v. Continental Insurance
872 P.2d 668
Ariz. 1994
210, 213 (D.Ariz.1992), aff'd, 10 F.3d 809 (9th Cir.1993); -61 , -27 (1969).
- State Compensation Fund v. Ireland 851 P.2d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
-
State Compensation Fund v. Ireland
851 P.2d 115
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
-61 , -27 (1969); see also Car-row, 167 Ariz. at 21 , 804 P.2d at 750 (absent specific language, statute should not be construed as causing change in common law).
- Matter of Guardianship of Cruz 741 P.2d 317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
-
Matter of Guardianship of Cruz
741 P.2d 317
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
§ 14-5206; , In re Farson’s Estate, , , 184 P. 1005 (1919); In re Thelen’s Estate
- Jones v. Manhart 585 P.2d 1250 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
-
Jones v. Manhart
585 P.2d 1250
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
552, 553 , In re Thelen’s Estate, , Tucson Gas & Electric Co. v. Schantz, 5 Ariz.App.
- State v. de Montaigu 572 P.2d 456 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
- State v. de Montaigu 572 P.2d 456 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
- State v. Galbraith 559 P.2d 1089 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
- State v. Galbraith 559 P.2d 1089 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
- Kilmer v. Hicks 529 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
- Kilmer v. Hicks 529 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974