Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite J.L.F. v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, 91 P.3d 1002.

30 citing documents.

Lalliss v. National Liability Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Lalliss v. National Liability Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
v. Ariz. Health Care Cost Containment Sys., ¶ 10 (App. 2004).
Arizona Cardinals v. Ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Arizona Cardinals v. Ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
v. Ariz. Health Care Cost Containment Sys., ¶ 10 (App. 2004).
3 Sl v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
3 Sl v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
v. Ariz. Health Care Cost Containment Sys., ¶ 10 (App. 2004).
J v. v. Hon blair/morris 536 P.3d 1223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
J v. v. Hon blair/morris 536 P.3d 1223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
v. Ariz. Health Care Cost Containment Sys., ¶ 10 (App. 2004).
Universal Homes v. Mitchell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Universal Homes v. Mitchell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
v. Ariz. Health Care Cost Containment Sys., ¶ 12 (App. 2004).
Di Giacinto v. Arizona State Retirement System 395 P.3d 292 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Di Giacinto v. Arizona State Retirement System 395 P.3d 292 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
v. Ariz. Health Care Cost Containment Sys., ¶ 10
Wildearth Guardians, Inc. v. Hickman 308 P.3d 1201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Wildearth Guardians, Inc. v. Hickman 308 P.3d 1201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
SOROKIN v. Arnold 219 P.3d 250 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
SOROKIN v. Arnold 219 P.3d 250 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
v. Ariz. Health Care Cost Containment Sys., ¶ 15 , (acknowledging statutory context relevant to interpretation).
Callen v. Rogers 168 P.3d 907 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Callen v. Rogers 168 P.3d 907 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
v. Ariz. Health Care Cost Containment Sys., ¶ 10
Owens v. M.E. Schepp Ltd. Partnership 165 P.3d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Owens v. M.E. Schepp Ltd. Partnership 165 P.3d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
v. Ariz. Health Care Cost Contain *281 ment Sys., ¶ 15 , (citations omitted) (acknowledging that if statutory language is unclear we consider other factors, including spirit and purpose of provision).
Phoenix City Prosecutor's Office v. Ybarra 160 P.3d 695 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Phoenix City Prosecutor's Office v. Ybarra 160 P.3d 695 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
v. Ariz. Health Care Cost Containment Sys., ¶ 15 , (acknowledging that if statutory language is unclear “we consider the statute’s context, subject matter, historical context, effects and consequences, and spirit and purpose”) (citations omitted).
Mago v. Mercedes-Benz, U.S.A., Inc. 142 P.3d 712 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Mago v. Mercedes-Benz, U.S.A., Inc. 142 P.3d 712 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
v. Ariz. Health Care Cost Containment Sys., ¶ 15 , (noting court considers purpose of statute to divine intent).
Committee for Preservation of Established Neighborhoods v. Riffel 141 P.3d 422 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Committee for Preservation of Established Neighborhoods v. Riffel 141 P.3d 422 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
v. Ariz. Health Care Cost Containment Sys., ¶ 15 , (citations omitted) (acknowledging that if statutory language unclear “we consider the statute’s context” among other things).
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
v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment Sys., -62, ¶ 12 , -05 (App.2004) (agency head, *190 not ALJ, renders final agency decision subject to judicial review); ¶ 15 , (same).
Parrot v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. 108 P.3d 922 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Parrot v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. 108 P.3d 922 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
v. Ariz. Health Care Cost Containment Sys., , 162 ¶ 15, (citations omitted); see BedRoc Ltd., 541 U.S. at 186, 124 S.Ct.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by