Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Evenstad v. State, 875 P.2d 811.

117 citing documents.

Maximov v. Maximov 205 P.3d 1146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Although we are loath to make arguments for a party, particularly one who did not file an answering brief, “when we are considering the interpretation and application of statutes, we do not believe we can be limited to the arguments made by the parties if that would cause us to reach an incorrect result.”
Lorenzo Sanchez, Sr. and Bertha Sanchez v. Tucson Orthopaedic Institute Levi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Lorenzo Sanchez, Sr. and Bertha Sanchez v. Tucson Orthopaedic Institute Levi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Yollin v. City of Glendale 191 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Yollin v. City of Glendale 191 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 196 P.3d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
In re MH 2007-001275 196 P.3d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 196 P.3d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
("If application of a legal principle, even if not raised below, would dispose of an action on appeal and correctly explain the law, it is appropriate for us to consider the issue.") ( , ).
In re MH 2007-001275 196 P.3d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
(“If application of a legal principle, even if not raised below, would dispose of an action on appeal and correctly explain the law, it is appropriate for us to consider the issue.”) ( , ).
Michael M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 172 P.3d 418 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Michael M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 172 P.3d 418 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
(“If application of a legal principle, even if not raised below, would dispose of an action on appeal and correctly explain the law, it is appropriate for us to consider the issue.”).
Odom v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona 169 P.3d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Odom v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona 169 P.3d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
And, when interpretation and application of statutes are involved, we are not necessarily “ ‘limited to the arguments made by the parties if that would cause us to reach an incorrect result.’ ” Yarbrough, , ¶ 23 n. 6, 147 P.3d at 762 n. 6, , see also Mitchell, , 86 P.3d at 950 ; Liristis, , 61 P.3d at 25 (“When the parties have tendered an insurance policy to the court for a coverage ruling, the court has discretion to read and interpret the policy correctly and is not necessaril
Sun City Grand Community Ass'n v. Maricopa County 164 P.3d 679 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Sun City Grand Community Ass'n v. Maricopa County 164 P.3d 679 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State of Arizona v. Christopher Cruz Cuevas 153 P.3d 414 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Christopher Cruz Cuevas 153 P.3d 414 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
(“If application of a legal principle .
Yarbrough v. Montoya-Paez 147 P.3d 755 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Yarbrough v. Montoya-Paez 147 P.3d 755 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
"If application of a legal principle, even if not raised below, would dispose of an action on appeal and correctly explain the law, it is appropriate for us to consider the issue.”
Myers v. City of Tempe 128 P.3d 751 Ariz. 2006
Myers v. City of Tempe 128 P.3d 751 Ariz. 2006
The AAA unambiguously dictated that “decision.” ¶14 P.2d 811 (App. 1993), than to the facts in Fidelity or Doe.
Lyons v. State Board of Equalization 104 P.3d 867 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Lyons v. State Board of Equalization 104 P.3d 867 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Arizona State Democratic Party v. State 98 P.3d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State ex rel. Arizona Department of Revenue v. Capitol Castings, Inc. 69 P.3d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State ex rel. Arizona Department of Revenue v. Capitol Castings, Inc. 69 P.3d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Liristis v. American Family Mutual Insurance 61 P.3d 22 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Liristis v. American Family Mutual Insurance 61 P.3d 22 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
n. 12 (D.C.Ct.App.2001) (considering a policy provision not relied upon by the insured in support of coverage because “where a legal theory that a party does advance is grounded on a contract that is before the court, the court does have a duty to read the contract without blinkers on, so that it can discern the meaning and applicability of its provisions correctly”); , (“[W]hen we are considering the interpretation and application of statutes, we do not believe we can be limited to the argument
Long v. Napolitano 53 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Long v. Napolitano 53 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
("[W]hen we are considering the interpretation and application of statutes, we do not believe we can be limited to the arguments made by the parties if that would cause us to reach an incorrect result.”).
Romley v. Arpaio 40 P.3d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Romley v. Arpaio 40 P.3d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
(“[W]hen we are considering the interpretation and application of statutes, we do not believe we can be limited to the arguments made by the parties if that would cause us to reach an incorrect 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
Johnson v. Davis 12 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Johnson v. Davis 12 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
(“[W]hen we are considering the interpretation and application of statutes, we do not believe we can be limited to the arguments made by the parties if that would cause us to reach an incorrect result.”).
T.W.M. Custom Framing v. Industrial Commission 6 P.3d 745 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
T.W.M. Custom Framing v. Industrial Commission 6 P.3d 745 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
(court may consider applicability of a statute even if not raised in trial court).
Bills v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund 984 P.2d 574 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Bills v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund 984 P.2d 574 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
§ 12-820.02(A)(1) “is a constitutional grant of governmental immunity”); , (holding that, “because neither the Arizona courts nor the legislature has ever recognized a right of action against public entities for conduct shielded by A.R.S.
Goodman v. Samaritan Health System 990 P.2d 1061 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Goodman v. Samaritan Health System 990 P.2d 1061 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Ramirez v. Health Partners 972 P.2d 658 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Ramirez v. Health Partners 972 P.2d 658 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
(no abrogation where “neither the Arizona courts nor the legislature has ever recognized a right of action” in the area shielded by immunity); , (no abrogation where common law immunities apply and where
Fidelity Security Life Insurance v. State 954 P.2d 580 Ariz. 1998
Fidelity Security Life Insurance v. State 954 P.2d 580 Ariz. 1998
¶ 19 Finally, petitioners argue that the interpretation of section 12-820.01 , thus rendering the statute violative of the anti-abrogation provision of the Arizona Constitution.
Diaz v. Magma Copper Co. 950 P.2d 1165 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Diaz v. Magma Copper Co. 950 P.2d 1165 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
b. Determination of Governmental Policy The State also argues that the inspection of mines is immune from liability because it involves “the determination of fundamental governmental policy.” , the “ad hoc approach” -11 , -600 (1982), 7 is still used to evaluate whether an administrative function involves fundamental governmental policy.
Fidelty Security Life Insurance v. State 935 P.2d 861 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Fidelty Security Life Insurance v. State 935 P.2d 861 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997