Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Johnson v. Mohave County, 78 P.3d 1051.

34 citing documents.

Demand v. Minderman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Demand v. Minderman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Arizona Republican Party v. Richer Ariz. 2024
Arizona Republican Party v. Richer Ariz. 2024
However, a claim is not groundless if it is “fairly debatable,” ¶ 19 (App. 2003), even if such claim constitutes a “long shot,” ¶ 68 (App. 2020).
Arizona Alliance for Retired Americans, Inc. v. Ann English Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
Arizona Alliance for Retired Americans, Inc. v. Ann English Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
Although we must “construe seemingly conflicting statutes in harmony when possible,” the plain language of § 16-602(F) establishes with precision the number of early ballots that must be hand audited in the first instance (“a number equal to one percent of the total number of early ballots cast or five thousand early ballots, whichever is less”).
Vivian v. Cobb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Vivian v. Cobb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 16 (App. 2003) (party seeking fees pursuant to prior version of § 12-349(F) must prove that a claim “constitutes harassment, is groundless and is not made in good faith”).
Compassionate Care Dispensary, Inc. v. Ariz. Dep't of Health Servs. 418 P.3d 978 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Compassionate Care Dispensary, Inc. v. Ariz. Dep't of Health Servs. 418 P.3d 978 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
335, ¶ 19, , 1056 (App. 2003) (" Section 12-349 does not provide a basis for an award of attorneys' fees against a party whose unsuccessful claim was ...
Di Giacinto v. Arizona State Retirement System 395 P.3d 292 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Di Giacinto v. Arizona State Retirement System 395 P.3d 292 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
White Mountain Health Center, Inc. v. Maricopa County 386 P.3d 416 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
White Mountain Health Center, Inc. v. Maricopa County 386 P.3d 416 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(stating courts “construe seemingly conflicting statutes in harmony when possible,” but “when two statutes truly conflict, either the more recent or more specific controls”); ¶ 11 , (stating that in addition to harmonizing seemingly-conflicting statutes when possible, courts should construe statutes in conjunction with other statutes that relate to *250 the same subject or purpose, giving effect to all statutes involved).
Johnson v. Matthews Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Johnson v. Matthews Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Ader v. Estate of Felger 375 P.3d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Ader v. Estate of Felger 375 P.3d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
And we construe statutes “in conjunction with other statutes that relate to the same subject or purpose.”
Johnson v. Cameron Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Johnson v. Cameron Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶15 On appeal, P.3d 1051 (App. 2003) for the proposition that this Court must independently review the record to determine whether sufficient evidence exists to support an award.
ARIZONA DEPT. OF ECONOMIC SEC. v. Lee 264 P.3d 34 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
ARIZONA DEPT. OF ECONOMIC SEC. v. Lee 264 P.3d 34 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Yavapai-Apache Nation v. Fabritz-Whitney 260 P.3d 299 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Yavapai-Apache Nation v. Fabritz-Whitney 260 P.3d 299 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
“[A] statute should be construed in conjunction with other statutes that relate to the same subject or purpose____” ¶ 11
CYPRESS ON SUNLAND HOMEOWNERS, ASS'N. v. Orlandini 257 P.3d 1168 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
CYPRESS ON SUNLAND HOMEOWNERS, ASS'N. v. Orlandini 257 P.3d 1168 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Sharpe v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System 207 P.3d 741 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Sharpe v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System 207 P.3d 741 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
¶ 11 , (“[A] statute should be construed in conjunction with other statutes that relate to the same subject or purpose, giving effect to all statutes involved.”).
Town of Gilbert v. Maricopa County 141 P.3d 416 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Town of Gilbert v. Maricopa County 141 P.3d 416 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
¶ 11 , (“[C]ourts construe seemingly conflicting statutes in harmony when possible----[G]iving effect to all statutes involved.” (citation omitted)).
Fillmore v. MARICOPA WATER PROCESSING 120 P.3d 697 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Fillmore v. MARICOPA WATER PROCESSING 120 P.3d 697 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Thomas and King, Inc. v. City of Phoenix 92 P.3d 429 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Thomas and King, Inc. v. City of Phoenix 92 P.3d 429 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
¶ 11 , (when harmonizing statutes, court should construe statute to further legislative intent).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by