Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Matter of Estate of Dobert, 963 P.2d 327.

34 citing documents.

Do v. Board of Regents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Do v. Board of Regents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
¶ 3, 255, ¶ 29 (App. 1998).
Lynum v. Tavares Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Lynum v. Tavares Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 10 (2002); –53, ¶ 18 (App. 1998).
Kohner v. Pyper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Kohner v. Pyper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 17, (If an Arizona statute is based on a uniform act, courts assume the legislature “intended to adopt the construction placed on the act by its drafters,” and commentary to the uniform act is “highly persuasive unless erroneous or contrary to settled policy in this state.”).
Carey v. K&M Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Carey v. K&M Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 17, (if an Arizona statute is based on a uniform act, courts assume the legislature “intended to adopt the construction placed on the act by its drafters[,]” and commentary to the uniform act is “highly persuasive unless erroneous or contrary to settled policy in this state”) (quo
Hawk v. PC Village Ass'n 309 P.3d 918 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Hawk v. PC Village Ass'n 309 P.3d 918 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Koss Corp. v. American Express Co. 309 P.3d 898 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Koss Corp. v. American Express Co. 309 P.3d 898 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Sun Valley Ranch 308 Ltd.., ¶ 8 , (holding that comments to uniform acts are highly persuasive unless they are erroneous or conflict with settled Arizona policy); ¶ 17 , (same).
Sun Valley Ranch 308 Ltd. Partnership v. Robson 294 P.3d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Sun Valley Ranch 308 Ltd. Partnership v. Robson 294 P.3d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
¶ 17 , (if an A-izona statute is based on a uniform act, courts assume the legislature “intended to adopt the construction placed on the act by its drafters,” and commentary to the uniform act is “highly persuasive unless erroneous or contrary to settled policy in this state”) (quoti
Dept. of Economic SEC. v. Tazioli 246 P.3d 944 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Dept. of Economic SEC. v. Tazioli 246 P.3d 944 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
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
(reviewing contract clause 2 Because we conclude that the requirements of § 11-821 apply to sewer connection fees in this case, we do not address Robson’s argument that the common law imposes a standard of reasonableness and nondiscrimination and that the fees v
In Re Estate of Rodriguez 160 P.3d 679 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
In Re Estate of Rodriguez 160 P.3d 679 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
As recognized in ¶ 24 , revocation by divorce statutes rest on the belief that, after a divorce, neither spouse will usually wish to leave any part of his or her estate to the other: The statutes anticipate that, upon undergoing a fundamental change in family composition such as ...
Estate of Winn v. Plaza Healthcare, Inc. 128 P.3d 234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Estate of Winn v. Plaza Healthcare, Inc. 128 P.3d 234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
400 , -46 (1984)); ¶ 17 , (“When a statute is based on a uniform act, we assume that the legislature ‘intended to adopt the construction placed on the act by its drafters.’ ”) ( , ).
In Re Estate of Lamparella 109 P.3d 959 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
In Re Estate of Lamparella 109 P.3d 959 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
¶ 9 , ¶ 17 , , 313 n. 1, , 887 n. 1 (App.1997).
Marriage of McHale v. McHale 109 P.3d 89 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Marriage of McHale v. McHale 109 P.3d 89 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
¶ 17 , (“When a statute is based on a uniform act, we assume that the legislature ‘intended to adopt the construction placed on the act by its drafters.’ [Citation omitted.]
Baker v. Arizona Department of Revenue 105 P.3d 1180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Baker v. Arizona Department of Revenue 105 P.3d 1180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
See In re *556 Dobert, , (because a party lacked any reasonable expectation that her beneficiary status would continue, her interest in remaining the designated beneficiary was not substantially impaired by a statute’s revocation provision).
In re the Estate of Fishman 30 P.3d 140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
In re the Estate of Fishman 30 P.3d 140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
(insurance company obligated to pay life insurance proceeds to beneficiary).
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
Agans v. Barnd 998 P.2d 449 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Agans v. Barnd 998 P.2d 449 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
“When a statute is based on a uniform act, we assume that the legislature ‘intended to adopt the construction placed on the act by its drafters.’ ” ¶ 17 , ¶ 17 (App.1998) ( , ).