Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Wareing v. Falk, 897 P.2d 1381.

43 citing documents.

Carey v. Soucy 431 P.3d 1200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Carey v. Soucy 431 P.3d 1200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Doty-Perez v. Doty-Perez 426 P.3d 1208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Doty-Perez v. Doty-Perez 426 P.3d 1208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
See Wareing v. Falk , , 500, , 1386 (App. 1995) ("It is well settled that the legislature is presumed to know existing law when it enacts a statute.") (citing cases).
Pima County Human Rights Committee v. Arizona Department of Health Services 303 P.3d 71 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Pima County Human Rights Committee v. Arizona Department of Health Services 303 P.3d 71 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
(legislature presumed to know existing law).
Southwest Airlines Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 175 P.3d 700 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Southwest Airlines Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 175 P.3d 700 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
(courts presume that the Legislature is aware of existing law when it enacts a statute).
Stein v. Sonus USA, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Stein v. Sonus USA, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
§ 1630.2(g)(1), (i) (1997); (enacting legislature is “presumed to know existing law”).
State of Arizona v. Lenny M. Box Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Lenny M. Box Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
First, § 13-3883(B) contains the permissive, nonrestrictive word “may,” not conclusive, restrictive language such as “may only.” Second, “the legislature is presumed to know existing law when it enacts a statute,” 2 At oral argument before this court, appellant urged that Baxley had not been justified in stopping appellant because the warning Baxley ultimately issued was for violating A.R.S.
Camelback Plaza Development, L.C. v. Hard Rock Café International (Phoenix), Inc. 25 P.3d 8 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Camelback Plaza Development, L.C. v. Hard Rock Café International (Phoenix), Inc. 25 P.3d 8 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Jackson v. Tangreen 18 P.3d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Jackson v. Tangreen 18 P.3d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
See, , (noting that it is well settled that the legislature is presumed to know existing law when it enacts a statute).
State v. Samano 11 P.3d 1045 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Frederikson v. Maricopa County 3 P.3d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Frederikson v. Maricopa County 3 P.3d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Lavidas v. Smith 987 P.2d 212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Distinguished Lavidas v. Smith 987 P.2d 212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
“[T]he legislature is presumed to know existing law when it enacts a statute.”
Hutcherson v. City of Phoenix 961 P.2d 449 Ariz. 1998
Hutcherson v. City of Phoenix 961 P.2d 449 Ariz. 1998
RE MONKS CONST. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. 944 P.2d 517 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
R.E. Monks Construction Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 944 P.2d 517 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
RE MONKS CONST. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. 944 P.2d 517 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
R.E. Monks Construction Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 944 P.2d 517 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
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
“[T]he legislature is presumed to know existing law when it enacts a statute.”
Williams v. Thude 934 P.2d 1349 Ariz. 1997
Williams v. Thude 934 P.2d 1349 Ariz. 1997
Although some early decisions may not have clearly defined willful or wanton misconduct, any ambiguity was resolved in DeElena v. Southern Pacific Co. , (“[I]t is settled that wanton misconduct is aggravated negligence.”)
Rosner v. Denim & Diamonds, Inc. 937 P.2d 353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Rosner v. Denim & Diamonds, Inc. 937 P.2d 353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Thomas v. First Interstate Bank of Arizona, N.A. 930 P.2d 1002 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Thomas v. First Interstate Bank of Arizona, N.A. 930 P.2d 1002 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Natseway v. City of Tempe, 184 Ariz. *490 374
Lerma v. Keck 921 P.2d 28 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Lerma v. Keck 921 P.2d 28 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
(“A.R.S.”) section 12-2505(A), , violates the Arizona Constitution’s equal protection and special legislation provisions.
Little v. ALL PHOENIX S. COM. MENT. HLTH. 919 P.2d 1368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Little v. ALL PHOENIX S. COM. MENT. HLTH. 919 P.2d 1368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Little v. All Phoenix South Community Mental Health Center, Inc. 919 P.2d 1368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
Little v. All Phoenix South Community Mental Health Center, Inc. 919 P.2d 1368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
In addition, “[i]t is well settled that the legislature is presumed to know existing law when it enacts a statute.”
Dugan v. American Express Travel Related Services Co. 912 P.2d 1322 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Dugan v. American Express Travel Related Services Co. 912 P.2d 1322 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
“It is well settled that the legislature is presumed to know existing law when it enacts a statute,” , (citations omitted), and, in fact, A.R.S.