Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite In the Matter of Estate of Tovrea, 845 P.2d 494.

28 citing documents.

Chandler v. Roosevelt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Chandler v. Roosevelt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
“Standing by itself the word means all and nothing less than all.” Cao v. PFP Dorsey Invs., LLC, __ ¶ 28 (2024) (“’All’ means all—not less than all.”).
Goldberger v. State Farm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Goldberger v. State Farm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
(“[T]he statement of one exception implicitly denies the existence of other unstated exceptions.”).
Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 393 P.3d 146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Aepco v. Ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 393 P.3d 146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Fund v. Superior Court (EnerGCorp, Inc.), -76 , -04 (App. 1997) ( , , ).
Aepco v. Ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Fund v. Superior Court (EnerGCorp, Inc.), -76, -04 (App. 1997) ( ).
Flood Control Dist. v. Gaines 43 P.3d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Flood Control Dist. v. Gaines 43 P.3d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
(quoting In re Greenwald's Estate, 186 Misc.
In Re Estate of Fogleman 3 P.3d 1172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. v. Fegen 3 P.3d 1172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
In Re Estate of Fogleman 3 P.3d 1172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
¶ 34 Appellees also rely on , for the proposition that a decedent who leaves an insolvent estate may reject the apportionment of death taxes in his will.
Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. v. Fegen 3 P.3d 1172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
¶ 34 Appellees also rely on , for the proposition that a decedent who leaves an insolvent estate may reject the apportionment of death taxes in his will.
State v. Fragozo 3 P.3d 1140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
State v. Fragozo 3 P.3d 1140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
See Southwestern Iron & Steel Indus.
Agans v. Barnd 998 P.2d 449 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Agans v. Barnd 998 P.2d 449 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
(finding that tax clause in testator’s will unambiguously directed personal representative to pay taxes attributable to non-probate estate for life insurance from residuary probate estate).
City of Tucson v. Whiteco Metrocom, Inc. 983 P.2d 759 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
City of Tucson v. Whiteco Metrocom, Inc. 983 P.2d 759 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
(“Under the rule of ex-pressio unius est exclusio alterius ...
Samaritan Health System v. Caldwell 957 P.2d 1373 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Samaritan Health System v. Caldwell 957 P.2d 1373 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
And, in fact, while a creditor like Samaritan may seek payment from the decedent’s estate in probate proceedings, significant assets may transfer outside of probate, , , making the pursuit of payment in probate meaningless.
State Ex Rel. Department of Economic Security v. McEvoy 955 P.2d 988 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State Ex Rel. Department of Economic Security v. McEvoy 955 P.2d 988 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
(finding that “the statement of one exception implicitly denies the existence of other unstated exceptions”).
State Compensation Fund v. Superior Court 948 P.2d 499 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State Compensation Fund v. Superior Court 948 P.2d 499 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
*376 1301 (1996) (The expression of one or more items of a class indicates an intent to exclude all elements of the same class which are not expressed.).
Matter of Estate of Mason 947 P.2d 886 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Matter of Estate of Mason 947 P.2d 886 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997