DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Yollin v. City of Glendale, 191 P.3d 1040.

68 citing documents.

  • Thompson v. Pima County 243 P.3d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
  • Thompson v. Pima County 243 P.3d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
    (“When construing a statute, we have a duty to construe it properly....”); , (appellate court may not rewrite statute under “guise of divining legislative intent”).
  • Simon v. MARICOPA MEDICAL CENTER 234 P.3d 623 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • Simon v. MARICOPA MEDICAL CENTER 234 P.3d 623 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • Grand v. Nacchio 217 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
  • GRAND v. NACCHIO McMASTER QWEST COMMUNICATIONS Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
  • Grand v. Nacchio 217 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
    Based on the plain language of § 44-2003(D), it applies both to “covered person[s],” defined as defendants in private actions arising under §§ 44-1991 and 44-1992, see § 44-2003(P)(1), as well as “any other person the parties claim to have caused or contributed to the loss.” § 44-2003(D); , -44 (App.2008) (in construing statute, we first look to plain meaning of words employed by legislature).
  • GRAND v. NACCHIO McMASTER QWEST COMMUNICATIONS Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
    Based on the plain language of § 44-2003(D), it applies both to “covered person[s],” defined as defendants in private actions arising under §§ 44-1991 and 44-1992, see § 44-2003(P)(1), as well as “any other person the parties claim to have caused or contributed to the loss.” § 44-2003(D); -44 (App. 2008) (in construing statute, we first look to plain meaning of words employed by legislature).
  • 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
    App, 2008); ¶¶ 22-38 , -51 (App.2008).
  • Backus v. State 203 P.3d 499 Ariz. 2009
  • Backus v. State 203 P.3d 499 Ariz. 2009
    In Yollin v. City of Glendale, a panel from Division One held that the language and purpose of the statute “support the inference that the supporting facts requirement demands a recitation of how past events harmed the claimant and led to his offer.” __ ¶ 27
  • City of Phoenix v. Fields 199 P.3d 1220 Ariz. 2009
  • City of Phoenix v. Fields 199 P.3d 1220 Ariz. 2009
    See, , 27 n. 2 ¶ 4, , 1043 n. 2 (App.2008) (noting but not deciding waiver issue); , 381 ¶ 29, (finding waiver).
  • Havasupai Tribe of the Havasupai Reservation v. Arizona Board of Regents 204 P.3d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
  • Havasupai Tribe of the Havasupai Reservation v. Arizona Board of Regents 204 P.3d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
    See Vasquez v. State of Arizona, 2008 WL 4402922 , ¶ 15, , -32, ¶ 23 , -48 (App.2008); Backus v. State of Arizona, 534 Ariz. Adv.
  • Vasquez v. State 206 P.3d 753 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
  • Vasquez v. State 206 P.3d 753 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008