Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Lewis v. Arizona Department of Economic Security, 925 P.2d 751.

46 citing documents.

Nina Alley v. Pima County, Pima County Attorney's Office, Laura Conover Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2026
SIMMS v. ARIZONA RACING COMMISSION Ariz. 2026
Simms v. Simms 567 P.3d 92 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Simms v. Simms 567 P.3d 92 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Sec., see also Loper Bright Enters.
Industrial Commission v. Old Republic Insurance 219 P.3d 285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Industrial Commission v. Old Republic Insurance 219 P.3d 285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Sec., , ), and “consider the statute’s context; its language, subject matter, and historical background; its effects and consequences; and its spirit and purpose.” Hayes v. Cont’l Ins.
Rueschenberg v. Rueschenberg 196 P.3d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Rueschenberg v. Rueschenberg 196 P.3d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Hasson 177 P.3d 301 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Hasson 177 P.3d 301 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Robson Ranch Quail Creek, LLC v. Pima County 161 P.3d 588 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Robson Ranch Quail Creek, LLC v. Pima County 161 P.3d 588 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Stein v. Sonus USA, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Stein v. Sonus USA, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
But, if a statute is ambiguous, we look to the “rules of statutory construction,” Lewis v. Arizona Department 2 of Economic Security, and “‘consider the statute’s context; its language, subject matter, and historical background; its effects and consequences; and its spirit and purpose,’” quoting Hayes v. Continental Insurance Co., 178 Ariz.
Griffith Energy, L.L.C. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 108 P.3d 282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Griffith Energy, L.L.C. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 108 P.3d 282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Sec., , (holding legislature “can give agencies discretion as to execution of the laws”) ( , ).
Arizona State Democratic Party v. State 98 P.3d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Arizona State Democratic Party v. State 98 P.3d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
GARDEN LAKES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC. v. Madigan 62 P.3d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
GARDEN LAKES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC. v. Madigan 62 P.3d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Facilitec, Inc. v. Hibbs 59 P.3d 803 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Facilitec, Inc. v. Hibbs 59 P.3d 803 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Steer Ex Rel. K & K Cable, Inc. v. Eggleston 47 P.3d 1161 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Steer Ex Rel. K & K Cable, Inc. v. Eggleston 47 P.3d 1161 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Unum Life Insurance Co. of America v. Craig 26 P.3d 510 Ariz. 2001
Unum Life Insurance Co. of America v. Craig 26 P.3d 510 Ariz. 2001
Samsel v. Allstate Insurance 19 P.3d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Samsel v. Allstate Insurance 19 P.3d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Sec., , (abuse of discretion used to review trial court’s discovery ruling).
State v. Gill 11 P.3d 1043 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Gill 11 P.3d 1043 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
In Re Timothy M. 4 P.3d 449 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
In Re Timothy M. 4 P.3d 449 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Lavidas v. Smith 987 P.2d 212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Lavidas v. Smith 987 P.2d 212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Blanchard v. Show Low Planning & Zoning Commission 993 P.2d 1078 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Blanchard v. Show Low Planning & Zoning Commission 993 P.2d 1078 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Koller v. Arizona Department of Transportation 988 P.2d 128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Koller v. Arizona Department of Transportation 988 P.2d 128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
In Re Frank H. 973 P.2d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
In Re Frank H. 973 P.2d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Tire Shredders, Inc. v. Pima County 965 P.2d 86 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Tire Shredders, Inc. v. Pima County 965 P.2d 86 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
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
City of Tucson v. Pima County 949 P.2d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
City of Tucson v. Pima County 949 P.2d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
In construing a statute, we attempt to determine and give effect to the legislature’s intent, , and consider “the statute’s context; its language, subject matter, and historical background; its effects and consequences; and its spirit and purpose.” Hayes v. Continental Ins.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by