Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Schoner, 591 P.2d 1305.

28 citing documents.

JH2K I LLC v. Ariz. Dep't of Health Servs. 438 P.3d 676 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
JH2K I LLC v. Ariz. Dep't of Health Servs. 438 P.3d 676 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
See, e.g. , State v. Schoner , , 530
Grady v. Barth 312 P.3d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Grady v. Barth 312 P.3d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
"To arrive at legislative intent, the court looks to the words, context, subject matter, effects and consequences, reason and spirit of the law.” , (citation omitted).
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
(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, , ).
State v. Soto-Perez 968 P.2d 1051 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
State v. Soto-Perez 968 P.2d 1051 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
State v. Singer 945 P.2d 359 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Singer 945 P.2d 359 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
General guidelines for statutory construction require us to give an ordinance full operation and “to avoid a construction which would render the statute meaningless or of no effect.”
SMP II Ltd. Partnership v. Arizona Department of Revenue 935 P.2d 898 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
SMP II Ltd. Partnership v. Arizona Department of Revenue 935 P.2d 898 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
(“In interpreting a statute, the court should give it a sensible construction which will accomplish legislative intent and purpose.”).
Walls v. Arizona Department of Public Safety 826 P.2d 1217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Walls v. Arizona Department of Public Safety 826 P.2d 1217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
“To arrive at legislative intent, the court looks to the words, context, subject matter, effects and consequences, reason and spirit of the law.”
State v. Gendron 804 P.2d 95 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Gendron 804 P.2d 95 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Flores 772 P.2d 589 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Flores 772 P.2d 589 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Thompson 674 P.2d 895 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Thompson 674 P.2d 895 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Lycett 650 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Lycett 650 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Purcell v. Superior Court, supra
St. Joseph's Hospital & Medical Center v. Maricopa County 635 P.2d 527 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
St. Joseph's Hospital & Medical Center v. Maricopa County 635 P.2d 527 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
State v. Fendler 622 P.2d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
State v. Fendler 622 P.2d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
State v. Arthur 608 P.2d 90 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
State v. Arthur 608 P.2d 90 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980