Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Mercy Healthcare Arizona, Inc. v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, 887 P.2d 625.

42 citing documents.

J. Ball Trust v. Phx Orchard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
J. Ball Trust v. Phx Orchard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
See also Mercy Healthcare Ariz., (“We look primarily to the language of the statute and give effect to the terms according to their commonly accepted meaning.”).
State v. McCcd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State ex rel. Brnovich v. Maricopa County Community College District Board 395 P.3d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. McCcd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Basic principles of statutory interpretation instruct that “specific statutes control over general statutes,” and, “when a general and a specific statute conflict, we treat the specific statute as an exception to the general.” Mercy Healthcare Ariz., (citing City of Phx.
State ex rel. Brnovich v. Maricopa County Community College District Board 395 P.3d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Basic principles of statutory interpretation instruct that “specific statutes control over general statutes,” and, “when a general and a specific statute conflict, we treat the specific statute as an exception to the general.” Mercy Healthcare Ariz., , (citing City of Phx.
McGovern v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System Administration 384 P.3d 329 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
McGovern v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System Administration 384 P.3d 329 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
pursuant to Title XIX of the Social Security Act.” Mercy Healthcare Ariz., (citing A.R.S.
Abbott v. Banner Health Network 341 P.3d 478 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Abbott v. Banner Health Network 341 P.3d 478 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
sections 1396 to 1396v (1988 & Supp. V 1993).” Mercy Healthcare Ariz.
In Re $70,070 in U.S. Currency 335 P.3d 545 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
In Re $70,070 in U.S. Currency 335 P.3d 545 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
’n, see also TDB Tucson Grp., (principles of statutory construction applied unless legislature “‘provides a specific definition or the context of the statute indicates a specific meaning’”), quoting Mercy Healthcare Ariz., 5 IN RE $70,070 IN U.S. CURRENCY Opinion of the Court Home Builders Ass’n of Cent.
Tdb Tucson Group, L.L.C. v. City of Tucson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Tdb Tucson Group, L.L.C. v. City of Tucson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
5 a specific definition or the context of the statute indicates a specific meaning.” Mercy Healthcare Ariz.
Blevins v. Government Employees Insurance 258 P.3d 274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Blevins v. Government Employees Insurance 258 P.3d 274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Save Our Valley Ass'n v. Arizona Corp. Commission 165 P.3d 194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Save Our Valley Ass'n v. Arizona Corp. Commission 165 P.3d 194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Corbett v. Manorcare of America, Inc. 146 P.3d 1027 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Corbett v. Manorcare of America, Inc. 146 P.3d 1027 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
(res judicata); Campbell v. SZL Props., Ltd., (collateral estoppel); Mercy Healthcare Ariz., (statutory interpretation).
Scottsdale Healthcare, Inc. v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System Administration 75 P.3d 91 Ariz. 2003
Scottsdale Healthcare, Inc. v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System Administration 75 P.3d 91 Ariz. 2003
The obvious intent of § 1903(v) is to limit publicly funded medical coverage for undocumented aliens to that necessary to treat “‘emergency medical conditions’ but not ‘long-term care.’” Mercy Healthcare Ariz.
Scottsdale Healthcare, Inc. v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System Administration 45 P.3d 688 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Scottsdale Healthcare, Inc. v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System Administration 45 P.3d 688 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
¶ 12 Scottsdale Healthcare relies on Mercy Healthcare Arizona
Marriage of Woodworth v. Woodworth 42 P.3d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Marriage of Woodworth v. Woodworth 42 P.3d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Mercy Healthcare Arizona
Ruth Fisher Elementary School District v. Buckeye Union High School District 41 P.3d 645 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Ruth Fisher Elementary School District v. Buckeye Union High School District 41 P.3d 645 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Hohokam Irrigation & Drainage District v. Arizona Public Service Co. 35 P.3d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Hohokam Irrigation & Drainage District v. Arizona Public Service Co. 35 P.3d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
See also Mercy Healthcare Arizona, , (“A basic principle of statutory interpretation instructs that specific statutes control over general statutes; when a general and a specific statute conflict, we treat the specific statute as an exception to the general, and the specific statute controls.”).
Friedemann v. Kirk 5 P.3d 950 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Friedemann v. Kirk 5 P.3d 950 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
“A basic principle of statutory interpretation instructs that specific statutes control over general statutes,” and “when a general and a specific statute conflict, we treat the specific statute as an exception to the general, and the specific statute controls.” Mercy Healthcare Arizona
City of Tucson v. State 957 P.2d 341 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
City of Tucson v. State 957 P.2d 341 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Crystal Point Joint Venture v. Arizona Department of Revenue 932 P.2d 1367 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Crystal Point Joint Venture v. Arizona Department of Revenue 932 P.2d 1367 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
See Mercy Healthcare Ariz., , Drexel Heights Fire Dist.
Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System v. Cochise County 920 P.2d 776 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System v. Cochise County 920 P.2d 776 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
The federal Medicaid program requires participating states to make “medical assistance” available to those “categorically eligible.” Mercy Healthcare Arizona
VALLEY NAT. BANK OF ARIZONA v. Kohlhase 897 P.2d 738 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
VALLEY NAT. BANK OF ARIZONA v. Kohlhase 897 P.2d 738 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Mercy Healthcare Arizona, , (citations omitted).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by