Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Patchin, 610 P.2d 1062.

26 citing documents.

Turner v. Steiner 398 P.3d 110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Turner v. Steiner 398 P.3d 110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Park, , 47 ¶ 16, (“Our Legislature did not choose this particular language, however, and we are ‘not at liberty to rewrite the statute under the guise of judicial interpretation.’ ”) ( , ).
Minch v. Azbn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Minch v. Azbn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Park, ¶ 16 (App. 2009) (); see also City of Phx.
Wells Fargo v. Hoag Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Wells Fargo v. Hoag Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
We disagree; there is no language in the statute supporting this construction, and we are “not at liberty to rewrite the statute under the guise of judicial interpretation.” see Ballesteros v. Am.
Newman v. Cornerstone National Insurance 322 P.3d 194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Newman v. Cornerstone National Insurance 322 P.3d 194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶7 Courts are “not at liberty to rewrite [a] statute under the guise of judicial interpretation.”
In Re the ESTATE OF Sanford M. BOLTON 315 P.3d 1241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
In Re the ESTATE OF Sanford M. BOLTON 315 P.3d 1241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Parker, Springer Jr., Anderson v. Committee for Sustainable Retirement in Support of Initiative 314 P.3d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Parker, Springer Jr., Anderson v. Committee for Sustainable Retirement in Support of Initiative 314 P.3d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
-11, -03 (1996) (courts must follow plain, unambiguous text and may not “rewrite statutes”); (“[T]his court is not at liberty to rewrite the statute under the guise of judicial interpretation.”).
Melendez v. Hallmark Insurance 305 P.3d 392 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Kahn v. Arizona Medical Board 300 P.3d 552 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Kahn v. Arizona Medical Board 300 P.3d 552 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Alliance Trutrus, L.L.C. v. Carlson Real Estate Co. 270 P.3d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Alliance Trutrus, L.L.C. v. Carlson Real Estate Co. 270 P.3d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Park, ¶ 16 , ( , ); Prince & Princess Enters., LLC v. State ex rel.
Loftus v. Arizona State University Public Safety Personnel Retirement System Local Board 255 P.3d 1020 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
In Re Martin M. and Rene N. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
In Re Martin M. 221 P.3d 1058 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
In Re Martin M. and Rene N. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
at 240, 669 P.2d at 1017; (“[T]his court is not at liberty to rewrite the statute under the guise of judicial interpretation.”).
In Re Martin M. 221 P.3d 1058 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
at 240 , 669 P.2d at 1017 ; , (“[Tjhis court is not at liberty to rewrite the statute under the guise of judicial interpretation.”).
NEW SUN BUSINESS PARK, LLC v. Yuma County 209 P.3d 179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
NEW SUN BUSINESS PARK, LLC v. Yuma County 209 P.3d 179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
that the pertinent language of § 11-808(A) would be: “and for such purposes may establish the position of county zoning inspector, who shall be appointed by the board, and such deputy inspectors as may be required.” Our Legislature did not choose this particular language, however, and we are “not at liberty to rewrite the statute under the guise of judicial interpretation.”
State of Arizona v. Francisco Lazaro Gonzalez, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Francisco Lazaro Gonzalez, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
at 240, 669 P.2d at 1017; 211, 1303 (1996) (courts must follow text of plain, unambiguous statute as written and “are not permitted to rewrite statutes”); (“[T]his court is not at liberty to rewrite the statute under the guise of judicial interpretation.”).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by