Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Grand Canyon Trust v. Arizona Corp. Commission, 107 P.3d 356.

25 citing documents.

Karolina Barrera v. Sedona Pointe LLC. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2026
v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, (“Although a title is not part of a law itself, we may look to it for guidance in interpreting a statute.”).
State of Arizona v. John Logan Brown Ariz. 2025
State of Arizona v. John Logan Brown Ariz. 2025
v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, ¶ 43 (App. 2005) (“When .
Woodward v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Woodward v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
See Grand Canyon Trust v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, –36, ¶ 20 (App. 2005) (citations omitted).
Else v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Else v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, ¶ 13 (App. 2005).
Shudak v. Azcc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Shudak v. Azcc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See Grand Canyon Trust v. Arizona Corp. Comm’n, ¶ 20 (App. 2005) (stating this court will defer to ACC’s interpretation of own rules unless “that interpretation is clearly erroneous”).
Sierra Club—Grand Canyon Chapter v. Arizona Corp. Commission 354 P.3d 1127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Sierra Club—Grand Canyon Chapter v. Arizona Corp. Commission 354 P.3d 1127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
The Commission’s factual determinations, however, are entitled to deference and the superior court “is not free to overturn [them] unless the plaintiff demonstrates by ‘clear and convincing evidence’ that the Commission’s determination is unreasonable.” Grand Canyon Trust v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, ¶ 11 (App. 2005) (citing Tucson Elec.
Flood Control District v. Paloma Investment Ltd. Partnership 350 P.3d 826 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Flood Control District v. Paloma Investment Ltd. Partnership 350 P.3d 826 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
See Grand Canyon Trust v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, , 40 n. 13, ¶¶ 43-44, , 366 n. 13 (App.2005) (noting the “statement of legislative purpose is itself enacted and is thus subject to the entire review process by which a bill becomes law”); see also Smith v.Super.
Edw. C. Levy Co. v. Maricopa County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Edw. C. Levy Co. v. Maricopa County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Particularly when the legislature “specifies its purpose in the session law that contains the statute, it is appropriate to interpret the statutory provisions in light of that enacted purpose.” Grand Canyon Trust v. Arizona Corp. Comm’n, ¶ 43
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
¶24 In Grand Canyon Trust v. Arizona Corp. Commission, this court stated that § 12-348 “interpreted as a whole does not authorize the court to require any entity other than a governmental entity to pay a fee award to the prevailing party.” ¶ 44
Maria Henning v. Montecini Hospitality Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Maria Henning v. Montecini Hospitality Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
See Grand Canyon Trust v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n
Crowell v. Jejna 161 P.3d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Crowell v. Jejna 161 P.3d 577 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
While the issue presented here does not require us to use the city council's "findings” to interpret the ordinance at issue, ¶ 43 , (appropriate to interpret statute in light of enacted legislative purpose), the council’s findings are helpful to our analysis of the fundamental character of the ordinance for purposes of the analysis that Derendal directs us to perform.
Lincoln v. Holt 156 P.3d 438 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Lincoln v. Holt 156 P.3d 438 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
When “the legislature specifies its purpose in the session law that contains the statute, it is appropriate to interpret the statutory provisions in light of that enacted purpose.” Grand Canyon Trust v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, ¶43 , see also Smith v. Super.
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Schneider 130 P.3d 991 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Schneider 130 P.3d 991 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Grand Canyon Trust v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, ¶ 35 , (citations omitted).