Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Collins v. State, 803 P.2d 130.

36 citing documents.

Brady v. ades/esa Tax Unit Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Brady v. ades/esa Tax Unit Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
(providing that we apply a sensible construction to avoid absurd results).
Mountainside v. Flagstaff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Mountainside v. Flagstaff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Comm’n, and applying a sensible construction to avoid absurd results
Mills v. Abotr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Mills v. Abotr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Starr v. Az Bof Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Starr v. Az Bof Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Furlong 473 P.3d 707 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Furlong 473 P.3d 707 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
v. Bentley, (“Statutes must be given a sensible construction that accomplishes the legislative intent and which avoids absurd results.” ()).
Legacy v. Citizens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Legacy v. Citizens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶13 as support for its position that the superior court’s appellate jurisdiction extends to untimely appeals challenging an administrative agency’s jurisdiction.
State of Arizona v. Bianca Burgett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Bianca Burgett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
(“Statutes must be given a sensible construction which accomplishes the legislative intent behind them and which avoids absurd results.”).
State v. Munoz 228 P.3d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Munoz 228 P.3d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
(“Statutes must be given a sensible construction which accomplishes the legislative intent behind them and which avoids absurd results.”).
Parkinson v. Guadalupe Public Safety Retirement Local Board 151 P.3d 557 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Parkinson v. Guadalupe Public Safety Retirement Local Board 151 P.3d 557 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
(We will not read into a statute a meaning that its language does not clearly intend.); , (We give statutes a sensible construction, one that advances their purpose and avoids an “absurd” result.).
Bolser Enterprises, Inc. v. Arizona Registrar of Contractors 139 P.3d 1286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Bolser Enterprises, Inc. v. Arizona Registrar of Contractors 139 P.3d 1286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
6 , (court should interpret statute so as to give it a fair and sensible meaning); , (court interprets statutes to accomplish legislative purpose and to avoid absurd result).
AMERICAN FAMILY MUT. INS. v. Continental Cas. 23 P.3d 664 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
AMERICAN FAMILY MUT. INS. v. Continental Cas. 23 P.3d 664 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Flynt 13 P.3d 1209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
State v. Flynt 13 P.3d 1209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
“Statutes must be given a sensible construction which accomplishes the legislative intent behind them and which avoids absurd results.”
LaBombard v. Samaritan Health System 991 P.2d 246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
LaBombard v. Samaritan Health System 991 P.2d 246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Murphy v. Board of Medical Examiners 949 P.2d 530 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Murphy v. Board of Medical Examiners 949 P.2d 530 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Phipps v. CW Leasing, Inc. 923 P.2d 863 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Phipps v. CW Leasing, Inc. 923 P.2d 863 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System v. Bentley 928 P.2d 653 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System v. Bentley 928 P.2d 653 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Davis v. Cessna Aircraft Corp. 893 P.2d 26 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Davis v. Cessna Aircraft Corp. 893 P.2d 26 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
II, , , 413 n. 1, , 134 n. 1 (App.1990).
Roberts v. State 880 P.2d 1159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Roberts v. State 880 P.2d 1159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Collins v. State ( ) [ ] states that “affirmative action” includes the assessing and enforcing of a penalty.