Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Arizona Department of Revenue v. Superior Court, 938 P.2d 98.

41 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. David Nikolas Delich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
State of Arizona v. David Nikolas Delich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
And “we will give effect to each word, phrase and clause included by the supreme court.” Ariz. Dep’t
Ronnie McDaniel v. Payson Healthcare Ariz. 2022
Ronnie McDaniel v. Payson Healthcare Ariz. 2022
to 1991 amendment)); Ariz. Dep’t (finding no violation of former version of One-Expert Rule where employee’s “opinion as to valuation was formed in the course and scope of his regular duties as an appraiser and not in anticipation of testifying at trial”); –82 ¶¶ 25–27 (App. 2017) (co
Cenite v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Cenite v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Wilcoxon cannot be considered an independent expert because he is a City employee.
Sportway v. Livin Da Dream Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Sportway v. Livin Da Dream Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
of Maricopa, (internal citation omitted).
Felipe v. Theme Tech Corp. 334 P.3d 210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Felipe v. Theme Tech Corp. 334 P.3d 210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
ndependent expert,” although neither focused directly on whether an expert was “independent” because the expert was “retained.” -74, ¶¶ 9-12, -44 (App. 2005) (holding that an expert presenting opinions formed as a result of statutory duties was more akin to a fact witness than an expert witness); Ariz. Dep’t -53, -02 (App. 1997) (holding that an expert who is an employee of a party is not “independent”).
McKesson Corp. v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System 286 P.3d 784 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
McKesson Corp. v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System 286 P.3d 784 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
(noting the “presumption that when the legislature alters the language of a statute it intended to create a change in the existing law.”) (citation omitted); Ariz. Dep’t , (recognizing that we interpret statutes and rules according to their plain meaning).
Ruben M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 282 P.3d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Ruben M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 282 P.3d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Thus, when construing a rule, we “give effect to each word, phrase and clause included by the supreme court.” Ariz. Dep’t
Ezell v. Quon 233 P.3d 645 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
In RE MARRIAGE OF REEDER v. Johnson 227 P.3d 492 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
In RE MARRIAGE OF REEDER v. Johnson 227 P.3d 492 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Alejandro v. Harrison 219 P.3d 231 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Alejandro v. Harrison 219 P.3d 231 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Ct., , and not making any word superfluous.
Kay S. v. Mark S. 142 P.3d 249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Kay S. v. Mark S. 142 P.3d 249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Stearns v. Arizona Department of Revenue 131 P.3d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Stearns v. Arizona Department of Revenue 131 P.3d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue v. Superior Court (ASARCO Inc.)
Falcon v. Maricopa County 128 P.3d 767 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Falcon v. Maricopa County 128 P.3d 767 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
See Ariz. Dep’t , (commencing interpretation of rule by examining its plain meaning).
In Re Commitment of Paul Frankovitch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
In Re Commitment of Paul Frankovitch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Paragraph (B) of Rule 26(b)(4) refers to “an expert who has been retained or specially employed by another party in anticipation of litigation or preparation for trial.” See also Ariz. Dep’t -55, -05 (App. 1997) (former rule limiting number of expert witnesses applied to “witnesses hired in anticipation of litigation or trial for testimonial purposes”).
State v. Williams 99 P.3d 43 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Williams 99 P.3d 43 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
¶ 5 , see also Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue v. Superior Court (Asarco Inc.), , *236 (stating that the interpretation of the rules of procedure parallels the interpretation of statutes).
City of Phoenix v. Phoenix Employment Relations Board 86 P.3d 917 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
City of Phoenix v. Phoenix Employment Relations Board 86 P.3d 917 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Kearney 81 P.3d 338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State v. Kearney 81 P.3d 338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State v. Old West Bonding Co. 56 P.3d 42 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Old West Bonding Co. 56 P.3d 42 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Mendez v. Robertson 42 P.3d 14 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Mendez v. Robertson 42 P.3d 14 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
interpreted by their plain meaning.” Arizona Dep’t
Rodriguez v. Arellano 979 P.2d 539 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Rodriguez v. Arellano 979 P.2d 539 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Kuhn v. St. Joseph's Hospital & Medical Center 984 P.2d 551 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Kuhn v. St. Joseph's Hospital & Medical Center 984 P.2d 551 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
we held that a department employee could testify as a property valuation expert without depriving the department of another, independent expert’s testimony.