Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Haag v. Steinle, 255 P.3d 1016.
- Smith v. Target Corp Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
-
Smith v. Target Corp
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Registration, ¶ 10 (2022), and interpret the meaning of statutes de novo, ¶ 9 (App. 2011).
- Brown v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
- Brown v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
- Grunwald v. Scottsdale Healthcare Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
- Grunwald v. Scottsdale Healthcare Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
- Hiskett v. Hon. lambert/state 451 P.3d 408 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
-
Hiskett v. Hon. lambert/state
451 P.3d 408
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
1(a); ¶¶ 4-5 (App. 2011).
- Cleckner v. Adhs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
- Cleckner v. Adhs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
- State v. Ludwig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
-
State v. Ludwig
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Because the statute’s language is clear and unambiguous, “we apply it without resorting to other methods of statutory interpretation.” ¶ 9 (App. 2011).
- Calhoun v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-
Calhoun v. Smith
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Interpretation of statutes and rules is reviewed de novo, ¶ 9 (App. 2011), and this court may affirm if the superior court was correct for any reason, ¶ 7 (App. 2013).
- In Re Celestino S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- In Re Celestino S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- McCarthy Integrated System, LLC v. Evoqua Water Technologies, LLC 379 P.3d 263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- McCarthy Integrated System, LLC v. Evoqua Water Technologies, LLC 379 P.3d 263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- Stambaugh v. Butler 379 P.3d 250 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-
Stambaugh v. Butler
379 P.3d 250
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“However, if more than one plausible interpretation of a statute exists, we typically employ tools of statutory interpretation.” ¶ 9
- Murray v. Farmers Insurance Company of Arizona .... 366 P.3d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
- Murray v. Farmers Insurance Company of Arizona .... 366 P.3d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
- Sandoval v. Tempe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
- Sandoval v. Tempe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
- Lewis v. Debord and Nelson-Debord 335 P.3d 1136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
-
Lewis v. Debord and Nelson-Debord
335 P.3d 1136
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
(“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.”).
- State of Arizona v. Reuben Renee Cota 319 P.3d 242 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
- State of Arizona v. Reuben Renee Cota 319 P.3d 242 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
- CSA 13-101 Loop, LLC v. Loop 101, LLC 312 P.3d 1121 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
- CSA 13-101 Loop, LLC v. Loop 101, LLC 312 P.3d 1121 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
- Robbins v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 300 P.3d 556 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
-
Robbins v. Arizona Department of Economic Security
300 P.3d 556
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
¶ 8 “If a statute’s language is clear and unambiguous, we apply it without resorting to other methods of statutory interpretation.” ¶ 9 , (internal quotation marks omitted).