Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Morgan v. Carillon Investments, Inc., 88 P.3d 1159.

25 citing documents.

Sun Lakes v. state/ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Sun Lakes v. state/ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Tax Liens, ¶ 14 (App. 2011) (citing Morgan v. Carillon Invs., Inc., ¶ 7 (App. 2004)).
Special Fund Division v. Industrial Commission 376 P.3d 1286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Special Fund Division v. Industrial Commission 376 P.3d 1286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Our legislature, however, did not include these additional words and we will not engage in “judicial legislation.” See Morgan v. Carillon Investments, Inc., ¶ 24 (App. 2004), aff’d
Grubaugh v. Hon blomo/lawrence 359 P.3d 1008 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Grubaugh v. Hon blomo/lawrence 359 P.3d 1008 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
See Morgan v. Carillon Inv., Inc., ¶ 24, (explaining that even though the legislature did not include a specific provision that would have been beneficial, the court will not ”interpret” the statutes “to add such a provision”), aff’d, P.3d 82 (2005).
Bell v. Industrial Commission 317 P.3d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Bell v. Industrial Commission 317 P.3d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Tax Liens, ¶ 14 , (we consider the language and sentence structure of a statute and use a “common sense approach, striving to interpret a statute to harmonize all its provisions”) (quoting Morgan v. Carillon Invs., Inc., ¶ 7 , affd, , ).
Weitz Co. v. Heth 314 P.3d 569 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Weitz Co. v. Heth 314 P.3d 569 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
See Morgan v. Carillon Inv., Inc., , 550 n. 1, , 1162 n. 1 (App.2004) (disagreeing with prior panel’s interpretation of a statute and recognizing that “stare decisis and the need for stability in the law do not preclude us from determining that a prior court of appeals decision was incorrectly decided”).
Gorman v. Pima County 287 P.3d 800 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Gorman v. Pima County 287 P.3d 800 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Morgan v. Carillon Invs., Inc.
Advanced Property Tax Liens, Inc. v. Sherman 260 P.3d 1093 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Advanced Property Tax Liens, Inc. v. Sherman 260 P.3d 1093 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Morgan v. Carillon Invs., Inc., ¶ 7 , aff'd
Estate of Braden Ex Rel. Gabaldon v. State 238 P.3d 1265 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Estate of Braden Ex Rel. Gabaldon v. State 238 P.3d 1265 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
See Morgan v. Carillon Investments, Inc., ¶ 24 , (declining to interpret statutes to include a limitation period where none was included by the legislature).
SEMPRE LTD. PARTNERSHIP v. Maricopa County 235 P.3d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
SEMPRE LTD. PARTNERSHIP v. Maricopa County 235 P.3d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
See Morgan v. Carillon Invs., Inc., ¶ 7 , aff'd, , -500 , -20 (App. 1995) (stating the rule that statutes in pari materia are read together and harmonized to avoid rendering any word, clause, or sentence superfluous or void).
Cannon v. Hirsch Law Office, P.C. 213 P.3d 320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
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
¶ 12 “Our goal in interpreting statutes is to determine and apply the legislature’s intent.” Morgan v. Carillon Invs., Inc., ¶ 7
White v. Greater Arizona Bicycling Association 163 P.3d 1083 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
White v. Greater Arizona Bicycling Association 163 P.3d 1083 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
And, although a denial of review has no precedential value, Morgan v. Carillon Investments, Inc., n. 1 , , 1162 n. 1 (App.2004), our supreme court declined to review the decision when requested.
Morgan v. CARILLON INVESTMENTS, INC. 109 P.3d 82 Ariz. 2005
Morgan v. CARILLON INVESTMENTS, INC. 109 P.3d 82 Ariz. 2005
) __________________________________) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County The Honorable Mark R. Santana, Judge REVERSED AND REMANDED ________________________________________________________________ Opinion of the Court of Appeals, Division One P.3d 1159 (App. 2004) AFFIRMED ________________________________________________________________ RENAUD COOK DRURY MESAROS, PA Phoenix by Michael Salcido Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellants, Cross-Apellees HOLLOWAY ODEGARD FORREST KELLY