Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite In Re Estate of Jung, 109 P.3d 97.
- DONOVAN v. DONOVAN Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
-
DONOVAN v. DONOVAN
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
“Because the legislature has the power to withhold or to grant the right to make a will, its exercise [of that power] may be made subject to such regulations and requirements as the legislature pleases.” Id.; ¶ 27 (App. 2005) (recognizing the legislature’s adoption of the Uniform Probate Code’s view that witnesses may sign a will “within a reasonable time”).
- Rachelle Renee Westerman, Paul Bryan Westerman v. Timothy E. Ernst 563 P.3d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
-
Rachelle Renee Westerman, Paul Bryan Westerman v. Timothy E. Ernst
563 P.3d 647
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
l (1965); (“[I]ssues of reasonableness are generally questions of fact.”).
- Doctor v. Potter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
- Doctor v. Potter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
- Cleckner v. Adhs 433 P.3d 1200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
-
Cleckner v. Adhs
433 P.3d 1200
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶9 In interpreting a statute, we look first to its language, ¶ 12 (App. 2005), and try to give meaning to each word, phrase, clause and sentence so that no part of the legislation will be void, inert or trivial, see Ariz. State Univ.
- Bussberg v. Walker 420 P.3d 215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
- Bussberg v. Walker 420 P.3d 215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
- Jimmie G., Sally G. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
- Jimmie G., Sally G. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
- S.S., S.S. v. Stephanie H. 388 P.3d 569 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
-
S.S., S.S. v. Stephanie H.
388 P.3d 569
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
"If the language is not clear, we consider other factors such as 'the context of the statute, the language used, the subject matter, its historical background, its effects and consequences, and its spirit and purpose.'" Cross, 234 Ariz. at 603, ¶ 26 ( ¶ 12 (App. 2005)).
- Gila River Indian Community v. Department of Child Safety 379 P.3d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- Gric v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- Gila River Indian Community v. Department of Child Safety 379 P.3d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- Gric v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- Hogue v. City of Phoenix 378 P.3d 720 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- Hogue v. City of Phoenix 378 P.3d 720 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- Great Western Bank v. LJC Development, LLC 362 P.3d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
-
Great Western Bank v. LJC Development, LLC
362 P.3d 1037
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“Issues of reasonableness are generally questions of fact.” ¶ 28 (App. 2005) (citing Trustmark Ins.
- Wagoner v. Aleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
-
Followed
Wagoner v. Aleman
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 11 (App. 2005) (citing Sabino Town & Country Estates Ass’n v. Carr, ).
- Shurts v. Shurts Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
- Shurts v. Shurts Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
- Sysco Arizona, Inc. v. Hoskins 330 P.3d 354 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
- Sysco Arizona, Inc. v. Hoskins 330 P.3d 354 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
- 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
- State v. Abdi 248 P.3d 209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
-
State v. Abdi
248 P.3d 209
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
But, if the statute's language is not clear, we examine "`the context of the statute, the language used, the subject matter, its historical background, its effects and consequences, and its spirit and purpose.'"
- Porter v. Spader 239 P.3d 743 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
- Porter v. Spader 239 P.3d 743 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
- State v. Arizona Navigable Stream Adjudication Commission 229 P.3d 242 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
- State v. Arizona Navigable Stream Adjudication Commission 229 P.3d 242 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
- Penn-America Insurance v. Sanchez 202 P.3d 472 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
-
Penn-America Insurance v. Sanchez
202 P.3d 472
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
¶ 28 , (“[I]ssues of reasonableness are generally questions of fact.”); Trustmark Ins.
- Valerie M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 195 P.3d 192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
- Valerie M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 195 P.3d 192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
- Mathews v. Life Care Centers of America, Inc. 177 P.3d 867 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
- Mathews v. Life Care Centers of America, Inc. 177 P.3d 867 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
- Greenwood v. State 175 P.3d 687 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
- Greenwood v. State 175 P.3d 687 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
- Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov 165 P.3d 173 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
-
Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov
165 P.3d 173
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
See, ¶ 28 , (“[Tissues of reasonableness are generally questions of fact.”); Trustmark Ins.
- Lee v. State 161 P.3d 583 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
- Lee v. State 161 P.3d 583 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
- Slade v. Schneider 129 P.3d 465 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
- Slade v. Schneider 129 P.3d 465 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006