Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Committee for Preservation of Established Neighborhoods v. Riffel, 141 P.3d 422.

39 citing documents.

A & P RANCH LTD v. COCHISE COUNTY Ariz. 2026
Cravens v. Montano 567 P.3d 745 Ariz. 2025
Cravens v. Montano 567 P.3d 745 Ariz. 2025
–50 ¶ 8 (App. 2006) (“[W]e assume that when the legislature uses different language within a statutory scheme, it does so with the intent of ascribing different meanings and consequences to that language.”).
State Farm v. Orlando Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State Farm v. Orlando Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Voice v. Hall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Voice v. Hall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
¶ 6 (App. 2006) (noting strict compliance “requires nearly perfect compliance with constitutional and statutory referendum requirements”).
Workers v. Tempe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Workers v. Tempe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
¶ 6 (App. 2006) (noting strict compliance "requires nearly perfect compliance").
SHANE NOEL JONES and VICTORIA CRANFORD v. RESPECT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE 517 P.3d 1188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
SHANE NOEL JONES and VICTORIA CRANFORD v. RESPECT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE 517 P.3d 1188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
(“requires nearly perfect compliance”); (strict compliance required).
McMichael-gombar v. Phoenix Civil Service Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
McMichael-gombar v. Phoenix Civil Service Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶ 8 (App. 2006) ( ¶ 11 (2003)).
Contreras Farms v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Contreras Farms v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
–50, ¶ 8 (App. 2006) (“[W]e assume that when the legislature uses different language within a statutory scheme, it does so with the intent of ascribing different meanings and consequences to that language.”); cf. Am.
Ironwood Commons Cmty. Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Randall 439 P.3d 1193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Ironwood Commons Cmty. Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Randall 439 P.3d 1193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
of Established Neighborhoods v. Riffel , , 249-50, ¶ 8, , 424-25 (App. 2006) ("[W]e assume that when the legislature uses different language within a statutory scheme, it does so with the intent of ascribing different meanings and consequences to that language.").
Diaz v. Hon. bernini/state/tucson City Prosecutor 435 P.3d 457 Ariz. 2019
Diaz v. Hon. bernini/state/tucson City Prosecutor 435 P.3d 457 Ariz. 2019
–50 ¶ 8 (App. 2006) (“[W]e assume that when the legislature uses different language within a statutory scheme, it does so with the intent of ascribing different meanings and consequences to that language.”); Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 170 (2012) (“A word or phr
Hall v. Elected Officials' Retirement Plan 383 P.3d 1107 Ariz. 2016
State v. Ceasar 383 P.3d 1140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Ceasar 383 P.3d 1140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-50, ¶ 8 , (“[W]e assume that when the legislature uses different language within a statutory scheme, it does so with the intent of ascribing different meanings and consequences to that language.”); ¶ 11 , (noting assumptio
AEA Federal Credit Union v. Yuma Funding, Inc. 346 P.3d 991 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
AEA Federal Credit Union v. Yuma Funding, Inc. 346 P.3d 991 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 37 , (“[W]e presume that when the legislature uses different wording within a statutory scheme, it intends to give a different meaning and consequence to that language.”) (citing Comm, for Pres, -50, ¶ 8 , -25 (App.2006)).
Debra Arrett and Shirley Lamonna v. Julie K. Bower 345 P.3d 129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
Debra Arrett and Shirley Lamonna v. Julie K. Bower 345 P.3d 129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State v. Harm 340 P.3d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Harm 340 P.3d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
-50, ¶ 8, -25 (App. 2006)); -35, ¶ 5, -35 (App. 2004) (“[W]e .
Tucson Unified School District v. Gallagher Corum 322 P.3d 181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Tucson Unified School District v. Gallagher Corum 322 P.3d 181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Parker, Springer Jr., Anderson v. Committee for Sustainable Retirement in Support of Initiative 314 P.3d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Parker, Springer Jr., Anderson v. Committee for Sustainable Retirement in Support of Initiative 314 P.3d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. John Vincent Fitzgerald 303 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2013
Home Depot USA, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 287 P.3d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Home Depot USA, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 287 P.3d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Egan v. Fridlund-Horne 211 P.3d 1213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Egan v. Fridlund-Horne 211 P.3d 1213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Comm, -50, ¶ 8 , -25 (App.2006).
Sklar v. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS 207 P.3d 702 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Sklar v. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS 207 P.3d 702 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by