Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Thomas and King, Inc. v. City of Phoenix, 92 P.3d 429.

30 citing documents.

Arizona Alliance for Retired Americans, Inc. v. Ann English Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
Arizona Alliance for Retired Americans, Inc. v. Ann English Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
Furthermore, this court will “avoid an interpretation that makes ‘any language superfluous or redundant.’” City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., (quoting Thomas & King, ).
American Federation v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
American Federation v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Thomas & King, ¶ 9 (App. 2004).
Silk v. Blodgett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Silk v. Blodgett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Thomas & King, ¶ 9 (App. 2004).
Maricopa v. Hon. viola/el Rancho Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Maricopa v. Hon. viola/el Rancho Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Thomas & King, ¶ 8 (App. 2004); cf. A.R.S.
Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Ass'n v. Pacific Financial Ass'n 388 P.3d 556 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Ass'n v. Pacific Financial Ass'n 388 P.3d 556 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Thomas & King, ¶ 9 (App. 2004) (citation omitted).
State v. Hon. harris/mitchell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Hon. harris/mitchell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
See Thomas & King, ¶ 9, (interpreting municipal ordinances using the traditional rules of statutory construction); -35, ¶ 5, -35 (App. 2004) (“[W]e .
Ponderosa v. Coconino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Ponderosa v. Coconino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Thomas and King, ¶ 11, see City of Tempe v. Outdoor Sys., Inc., ¶ 9, (“When an ordinance regulates an area that is also regulated by state statute, the ordinance may parallel the statute or even reach beyond the parameters of the statute so long as the
Cross v. Elected Officials Retirement Plan 325 P.3d 1001 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Cross v. Elected Officials Retirement Plan 325 P.3d 1001 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
MacKinney v. City of Tucson 299 P.3d 1282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
MacKinney v. City of Tucson 299 P.3d 1282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
14 (2003); accord City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., (“We avoid an interpretation that makes ‘any language superfluous or redundant.’”), quoting Thomas & King, Inc. v. City of Phoenix, 208 Ariz. 203, ¶ 9
McKesson Corp. v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System 286 P.3d 784 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
McKesson Corp. v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System 286 P.3d 784 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Tumacacori Mission Land Development, Ltd. v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Tumacacori Mission Land Development, Ltd. v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Ariz. Const. art. XV, § 10; see City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., (appellate court will avoid interpretation rendering “„any language superfluous or redundant‟”), quoting Thomas & King
Beynon v. TREZZA 211 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Beynon v. TREZZA 211 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
¶ 22 “The government ordinarily is neither estopped by ‘the casual acts, advice, or instructions issued by nonsupervisory employees,’ nor estopped ‘from correcting a mistake of law.’ ” Thomas & King, , (internal citation omitted), quoting Valencia Energy, ¶¶ 36, 41 , 959 P.2d at 1268, 1270 .
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
We avoid an interpretation that makes “any language superfluous or redundant.” Thomas & King
Picaso v. Tucson Unified School District 154 P.3d 364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Picaso v. Tucson Unified School District 154 P.3d 364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
See Thomas & King, , (“The rules of statutory construction mandate that we harmonize provisions and avoid making language redundant.”).
Griffith Energy, L.L.C. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 108 P.3d 282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Griffith Energy, L.L.C. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 108 P.3d 282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
See also Thomas & King, ¶ 8 , DeCar-lo, 163 Ariz. at 25-26 , 785 P.2d at 594-95 (“The court is not empowered to substitute its judgment for that of the agency.”) (quoting Bowman Transp., Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight Sys., Inc., 419 U.S. 281, 285 , 95 S.Ct.