Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Barry v. Alberty, 843 P.2d 1279.

44 citing documents.

Marriage of Doty-Perez v. Doty-Perez 388 P.3d 9 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Marriage of Doty-Perez v. Doty-Perez 388 P.3d 9 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Hall v. READ DEVELOPMENT, INC. 274 P.3d 1211 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Hall v. READ DEVELOPMENT, INC. 274 P.3d 1211 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Bentley v. Building Our Future 172 P.3d 860 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Bentley v. Building Our Future 172 P.3d 860 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
¶ 12 In construing a statute, the starting point is the language of the statute itself “because we expect it to be ‘the best and most reliable index of a statute’s meaning.’” , (citations omitted)
Knight Transportation, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Transportation 55 P.3d 790 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Knight Transportation, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Transportation 55 P.3d 790 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Steiger v. Woods 32 P.3d 19 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Steiger v. Woods 32 P.3d 19 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Fisher v. City of Apache Junction 28 P.3d 946 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Fisher v. City of Apache Junction 28 P.3d 946 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
(ten-day period for filing action to require secretary of state to accept and file petition for initiative or referendum begins on date secretary refuses to file petition, not date proponent receives written notice of reason for refusal).
McDonald v. Thomas 12 P.3d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Petrusek v. Farmers Insurance 975 P.2d 142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Petrusek v. Farmers Insurance 975 P.2d 142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Samaritan Health System v. Superior Court 981 P.2d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Samaritan Health System v. Superior Court 981 P.2d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
See Arizona Biltmore Estates Ass’n v. Tezak
Walker v. Superior Court 956 P.2d 1246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Lind v. Superior Court 954 P.2d 1058 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Lind v. Superior Court 954 P.2d 1058 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
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
(holding that interpretation of a statute is a question of law).
Soto v. Superior Court 949 P.2d 539 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Soto v. Superior Court 949 P.2d 539 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
That case holds that “substantial,” not strict, compliance is required “in the initiative context.” 168 Ariz. at 428 , 814 P.2d at 769 ; , (“Initiative measures require ‘substantial’ compliance with requirements of the law, but not necessarily ‘technical’ compliance.”) (citation omitted).
Dugan v. Fujitsu Business Communications Systems, Inc. 937 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Dugan v. Fujitsu Business Communications Systems, Inc. 937 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Saenz v. STATE FUND WORKERS'S COMP. INS. 943 P.2d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Saenz v. STATE FUND WORKERS'S COMP. INS. 943 P.2d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Superior Court 923 P.2d 871 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Superior Court 923 P.2d 871 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 924 P.2d 450 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 924 P.2d 450 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Pfeil v. Smith 900 P.2d 12 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Pfeil v. Smith 900 P.2d 12 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Colonial Life & Accident Insurance v. State 911 P.2d 539 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Colonial Life & Accident Insurance v. State 911 P.2d 539 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State Ex Rel. Udall v. Superior Court 904 P.2d 1286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State Ex Rel. Udall v. Superior Court 904 P.2d 1286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Reinesto v. Superior Court 894 P.2d 733 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Reinesto v. Superior Court 894 P.2d 733 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Van Dyke v. Steinle 902 P.2d 1372 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Van Dyke v. Steinle 902 P.2d 1372 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Weekly v. City of Mesa 888 P.2d 1346 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Weekly v. City of Mesa 888 P.2d 1346 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
(statutory interpretation is a question of law); Chaffin v. Commissioner of Arizona Dep’t of Real Estate, , (review of statutory interpretation is de novo.).