Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Sanderson Lincoln Mercury, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 68 P.3d 428.

26 citing documents.

Premium Leaf v. Adhs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Premium Leaf v. Adhs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
See generally Sanderson Lincoln Mercury, ¶ 12 (App. 2003) (explaining that although a county island is surrounded by an incorporated municipality, it is not part of the municipality).
Universal Homes v. Mitchell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Universal Homes v. Mitchell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Sanderson Lincoln Mercury, ¶ 8 (App. 2003) (citing A.R.S.
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Harris 301 P.3d 200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Harris 301 P.3d 200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
See Sanderson Lincoln Mercury, ¶ 11 , (“[W]e presume that the legislature has said what it means.”).
Watson v. Apache County 189 P.3d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Watson v. Apache County 189 P.3d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
¶ 17 “The primary rule of statutory construction is to find and give effect to legislative intent.” Sanderson Lincoln Mercury, , 205 ¶ 11, (quoting Mail Boxes, etc. U.S.A.
Golob v. ARIZONA MEDICAL BD. OF STATE 176 P.3d 703 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Golob v. ARIZONA MEDICAL BD. OF STATE 176 P.3d 703 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Sanderson Lincoln Mercury, , 205 ¶ 8
Southwest Airlines Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 175 P.3d 700 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Southwest Airlines Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 175 P.3d 700 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
(giving great weight to relevant agency’s interpretation); Sanderson Lincoln Mercury, ¶ 8 , (same).
Smyser v. City of Peoria 160 P.3d 1186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Smyser v. City of Peoria 160 P.3d 1186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
See Sanderson Lincoln Mercury, ¶ 17 , (“cities and towns are no more than political entities created as the legislature deems wise”); , (city is included in statutory claims act’s reference to political subdivisions of the state).
Ritland v. Arizona State Board of Medical Examiners 140 P.3d 970 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Ritland v. Arizona State Board of Medical Examiners 140 P.3d 970 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Sanderson Lincoln Mercury, ¶ 8
Town of Gilbert v. Maricopa County 141 P.3d 416 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Town of Gilbert v. Maricopa County 141 P.3d 416 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
See generally Sanderson Lincoln Mercury, ¶ 12 , (explaining that although the county island is surrounded by an incorporated municipality, it is not part of the municipality); see also H.B.
J.L.F. v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System 91 P.3d 1002 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
J.L.F. v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System 91 P.3d 1002 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Sanderson Lincoln Mercury, , 205 ¶ 8, (citing AR.S.
State v. Nelson 90 P.3d 206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Nelson 90 P.3d 206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
“Only if the legislative intent is not clear from the statute do we consider other factors such as the statute’s context, subject matter, historical context, effects and consequences, and spirit and purpose.” Sanderson Lincoln Mercury, ¶ 11
Speros v. Yu 83 P.3d 1094 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Speros v. Yu 83 P.3d 1094 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Fund I v. Town of Surprise, , (annexation created an island of unincorporated land within the town’s border); Sand-erson Lincoln Mercury, ¶ 23 , (business located on county island within city).
Washburn v. Pima County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Washburn v. Pima County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
See Sanderson Lincoln Mercury