Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Cicoria v. Cole, 215 P.3d 402.

38 citing documents.

MAY v. MAY Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
MAY v. MAY Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
¶ 15 (App. 2009) (“Courts will not read into a statute something that is not within the manifest intent of the legislature as indicated by the statute itself, nor will the courts inflate, expand, stretch, or extend a statute to matters not falling within its express 2 The definitions found in the edition of Bla
State of Arizona v. Hon. James Marner; Hanees Mohamed Haniffa 560 P.3d 338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
State of Arizona v. Hon. James Marner; Hanees Mohamed Haniffa 560 P.3d 338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
“Courts will not read into a statute something that is not within the manifest intent of the legislature as indicated by the statute itself, nor will the courts inflate, expand, stretch, or extend a statute to matters not falling within its express provisions.”
Patricia Adams v. Hon. Brenden Griffin City Prosecutor's Office 540 P.3d 1221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
Patricia Adams v. Hon. Brenden Griffin City Prosecutor's Office 540 P.3d 1221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
Jurisdiction ¶5 “The decision to accept or reject special action jurisdiction is highly discretionary.” see also Ariz. R. P. Spec.
Milham v. Milham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Milham v. Milham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶ 4 (App. 2009) (acceptance of special action jurisdiction is “highly discretionary”).
Netherlands v. Md Helicopters Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Netherlands v. Md Helicopters Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Sec., ¶ 16 (App. 2019); ¶ 15 (App. 2009) (“Courts will not read into a statute something that is not within the manifest intent of the legislature as indicated by the statute itself .
Johnson v. ades/des Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Johnson v. ades/des Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 15 (App. 2009) (“Courts will not read into a statute something that is not within the manifest intent of the legislature as indicated by the statute itself .
Johnson v. Arizona Registrar of Contractors 396 P.3d 645 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Johnson v. Arizona Registrar of Contractors 396 P.3d 645 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
.” ¶ 15, (citation omitted).
State v. Thompson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Palmer v. City of Phoenix 393 P.3d 938 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Palmer v. City of Phoenix 393 P.3d 938 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 15, (court “will not read into a statute something that is not within the manifest intent of the legislature as indicated by the statute itself” and will not extend a statute to matters that do not fall within its express provisions) (citation omitted).
State v. Thompson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
.” ¶ 15, (citation omitted).
Ishak v. McClennen Ex Rel. County of Maricopa 388 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Ishak v. McClennen Ex Rel. County of Maricopa 388 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
8(a), and because his case presents “an issue of statewide importance potentially affecting numerous DUI cases,” ¶ 9 , see Dobson, 238 Ariz. at 391, ¶ 6 , .
State of Arizona v. Craig Victor Coleman 385 P.3d 420 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Craig Victor Coleman 385 P.3d 420 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Founding Fathers v. Asbcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Founding Fathers v. Asbcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 14 (App. 2009) (Courts read statutes relating to the same subject matter in connection with each other, “as though they constitute[] one law.”).
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
We “will not read into a statute something that is not within the manifest intent of the legislature as indicated by the statute itself, nor will [we] inflate, expand, stretch, or extend a statute to matters not falling within its express provisions.” 11 ADER v. ESTATE OF FELGER Opinion of the Court (App. 2009).
Foley v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Foley v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Dobson v. McClennen 337 P.3d 568 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Dobson v. McClennen 337 P.3d 568 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
430 ¶ 9, (accepting special action jurisdiction over petition presenting “an issue of statewide importance potentially affecting numerous DUI cases”); accord Darrah v. Superior Court, CA-SA 14-0054, , 186 ¶ 4, , 2014 WL 5339388 at *1 ¶4 (Ct.App.
Darrah v. Hon. mcclennen/mesa 337 P.3d 550 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Darrah v. Hon. mcclennen/mesa 337 P.3d 550 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Aaron Raymond Fikes 267 P.3d 1181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Aaron Raymond Fikes 267 P.3d 1181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. Munoz 228 P.3d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Munoz 228 P.3d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
However, we will apply the rule of lenity “only if, after considering the plain language of the statute and employing recognized tools of statutory interpretation, the statute remains ambiguous.” ¶ 20
STATE EX REL. AZ. STR. PEST CONT. v. Taylor 224 P.3d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
STATE EX REL. AZ. STR. PEST CONT. v. Taylor 224 P.3d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010