Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Johnson v. Davis, 12 P.3d 1203.

86 citing documents.

Bmo v. Reid Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Bmo v. Reid Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Although our case law notes that unsecured creditors have successfully sought appointment as personal representatives, see, ¶¶ 3-4, (AHCCCS sought and was appointed personal representative to recover medical benefits paid before the decedent’s death), ¶¶ 1-3, (unsecured creditor successfully sought informal appointment as personal representative), the Arizona Probate Code does not require creditors, secured or unsecured, to file for local administration in order to preserve their claim when a fo
Lynch v. Brakebill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Lynch v. Brakebill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
5 LYNCH v. BRAKEBILL Decision of the Court witnesses.” ¶ 5
DBT Yuma, L.L.C. v. Yuma County Airport Authority 340 P.3d 1080 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
DBT Yuma, L.L.C. v. Yuma County Airport Authority 340 P.3d 1080 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Mulcaire v. mongini/wallace Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Mulcaire v. mongini/wallace Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
pply a de novo standard of review to the trial court’s legal conclusions, ¶ 13, MULCAIRE v. MONGINI/WALLACE Decision of the Court 863, 868 (App. 2008), and we accept the trial court’s factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous, ¶ 5
Wells Fargo v. Crown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Wells Fargo v. Crown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“We will not set aside the [trial] court’s findings of fact unless clearly erroneous, giving due regard to the opportunity of the court to judge the credibility of witnesses.” ¶ 5
Williams v. Cole Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Williams v. Cole Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 5, (stating that we give “due regard to the opportunity of the court to judge the credibility of witnesses”); see also Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
Maleki v. Desert Palms Professional Properties, L.L.C. 214 P.3d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Maleki v. Desert Palms Professional Properties, L.L.C. 214 P.3d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
As such, we will not set aside the superior court’s finding of breach “unless clearly erroneous, giving due regard to the opportunity of the court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.” ¶ 5
Castro v. Ballesteros-Suarez 213 P.3d 197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Castro v. Ballesteros-Suarez 213 P.3d 197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
“We will not set aside the [trial] court’s findings of fact unless clearly erroneous, giving due regard to the opportunity of the court to judge the credibility of witnesses.” ¶ 5
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. 181 P.3d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. 181 P.3d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
(court presumes legislature does not intend absurd result).
In Re Estate of Parker 177 P.3d 305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Dometri Investments, LLC v. Lind 177 P.3d 305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Dometri Investments, LLC v. Lind 177 P.3d 305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
§ 14-3910 specifically provides that a purchaser takes title “free of rights of any person interested in the estate.” ¶ 7
In Re Estate of Parker 177 P.3d 305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
City of Phoenix v. Phoenix Employment Relations Board 86 P.3d 917 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
City of Phoenix v. Phoenix Employment Relations Board 86 P.3d 917 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
In re B.S. 74 P.3d 285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
In Re BS 74 P.3d 285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
In Re BS 74 P.3d 285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
In re B.S. 74 P.3d 285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Ugalde v. Burke 65 P.3d 103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Ugalde v. Burke 65 P.3d 103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
In order to properly interpret and apply a statute, we attempt to determine the legislative intent, ¶¶ 9-10 , and we look first at the plain meaning of the words in the statute.
Pro Finish USA, Ltd. v. Johnson 63 P.3d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Pro Finish USA, Ltd. v. Johnson 63 P.3d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
In Re Aaron M. 61 P.3d 34 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
In Re Aaron M. 61 P.3d 34 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
London Bridge Resort, Inc. v. Mohave County 27 P.3d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
London Bridge Resort, Inc. v. Mohave County 27 P.3d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
¶ 11 , (stating that in interpreting statutes, we must avoid constructions that lead to absurd results) (citations omitted); , (“Statutes must be given a sensible construction which will avoid absur