Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Hoyle v. Superior Court, 778 P.2d 259.

34 citing documents.

In Re Term of Parental Rights as to B.W. Ariz. 2025
In Re Term of Parental Rights as to B.W. Ariz. 2025
(“What a statute necessarily implies is as much a part of the statute as what the statute specifically expresses.”).
Socaa v. Dtt Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Socaa v. Dtt Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
which may result in the imposition of civil penalties."); -27 (App. 1989) (noting historical distinction between civil and criminal actions in determining whether there 5 SOCAA v. DTT ACC Decision of the Court ¶16 Rule 11(d) of the Arizona Rules of Procedure
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
Ct., , (“What a statute necessarily implies is as much a part of the statute as what the statute specifically expresses.”).
Folkestad v. Hon herrod/erickson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Folkestad v. Hon herrod/erickson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
In Re Estate of Newman 196 P.3d 863 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Explained In Re Estate of Newman 196 P.3d 863 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
“the 1913 Civil Code provided that either party in a civil action had the right to submit all issues of fact to a jury____ [This provision] was deleted from the 1928 Revised Code and was replaced by a provision that did not grant a substantive right to a jury trial in civil actions
Phoenix City Prosecutor's Office v. Ybarra 160 P.3d 695 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Phoenix City Prosecutor's Office v. Ybarra 160 P.3d 695 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Westburne Supply, Inc. v. Diversified Design & Constr., Inc., -01 , -27 (App.1992) ( , ) (“What a statute necessarily implies is as much a part of the statute as what it makes explicit.”); , (“If the Legislature intended to grant a jury trial in every case, it would have no doubt said so in plain
Aranda v. Cardenas, M.D. Nes Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Aranda v. Cardenas, M.D. Nes Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
at 48, 601 P.2d at 1332; ¶¶ 13-14, -81 (1999) (discussing child’s and state’s interests in paternity determination); Hoyle v. Superior Court, 161 Ariz. 224, 227, (“Historically, the purpose of a paternity action was to prove that the defendant was the child’s father so that he could be required to contribute to the child’s support.”).
Pamela Manic v. Tucson City Attorney's Office Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Pamela Manic v. Tucson City Attorney's Office Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
(if amendment does not change existing law, then title need not give notice of amendment).
Ottaway v. Smith 113 P.3d 1247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Ottaway v. Smith 113 P.3d 1247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
See, e.g., Hoyle v. Superior Court (State)
State v. Wilkinson 39 P.3d 1131 Ariz. 2002
State v. Wilkinson 39 P.3d 1131 Ariz. 2002
(discussing the extent of the common law right to jury trial in 1910).
Life Investors Insurance Co. of America v. Horizon Resources Bethany, Ltd. 898 P.2d 478 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Life Investors Insurance Co. of America v. Horizon Resources Bethany, Ltd. 898 P.2d 478 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
(holding that the statutory provision requiring paternity actions to be tried to the “court” did not confer a right to a jury trial).
S & R PROPERTIES v. Maricopa County 875 P.2d 150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
S & R PROPERTIES v. Maricopa County 875 P.2d 150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
(what statute implies is as much a part of it as what it expresses).
Business Realty of Arizona, Inc. v. Maricopa County 870 P.2d 1125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Business Realty of Arizona, Inc. v. Maricopa County 870 P.2d 1125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Keeping in mind that what a statute implies is as much a part of the statute as what it expresses, , we next turn to the language in section 42-147(D).
Guzman v. Guzman 854 P.2d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Guzman v. Guzman 854 P.2d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Hays v. Continental Insurance 838 P.2d 1334 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Hays v. Continental Insurance 838 P.2d 1334 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Westburne Supply, Inc. v. Diversified Design & Construction, Inc. 826 P.2d 1224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Westburne Supply, Inc. v. Diversified Design & Construction, Inc. 826 P.2d 1224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Estate of Hernandez v. Arizona Board of Regents 838 P.2d 1283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Estate of Hernandez v. Arizona Board of Regents 838 P.2d 1283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
“As a general rule, an act’s title need not be a synopsis or a complete index of the act’s provisions____ It is sufficient if it informs the reader of the subject matter of the legislation and of the interests that the legislation may affect in a general way.” , (citation omitted).