Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Nordstrom, Inc. v. Maricopa County, 88 P.3d 1165.

51 citing documents.

A & P Ranch Ltd v. Cochise County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
A & P Ranch Ltd v. Cochise County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Nordstrom, ¶ 29 (App. 2004).
Transwestern v. Ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Transwestern v. Ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
§ 42-11001(6); Nordstrom, ¶ 9 (App. 2004).
Maricopa v. Rana Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Maricopa v. Rana Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
or employees other than those working at the Home and (2) any non- emergency “in-home treatment,” which the court “defined as any physical, psychological, or mental health treatment or therapy from any licensed professional.” DISCUSSION ¶6 We accept the superior court’s factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous, Nordstrom, ¶ 18 (App. 2004), but review its legal conclusions de novo, see City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., ¶ 27 (App. 2008).
North Canyon v. Allen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
North Canyon v. Allen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Nordstrom, ¶ 18 (App. 2004) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Shaffer v. Procaccianti Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Shaffer v. Procaccianti Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
See Nordstrom, ¶ 9 (App. 2004).
Triyar v. Rem Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Triyar v. Rem Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
P. (“Rule”) 52(a); Nordstrom, ¶ 18 (App. 2004) (citation omitted).
Special Fund Division v. Industrial Commission 376 P.3d 1286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Special Fund Division v. Industrial Commission 376 P.3d 1286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See Nordstrom, -58, ¶ 15 (App. 2004).
Phoenix Cement v. Yavapai Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Phoenix Cement v. Yavapai Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Nordstrom, ¶ 18 (App. 2004).
Scottsdale/101 Associates, LLC v. Maricopa County 359 P.3d 1035 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Scottsdale/101 Associates, LLC v. Maricopa County 359 P.3d 1035 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶17 The County further argues that the tax court’s decision in this case should be upheld as consistent with Nordstrom, P.3d 1165 (App. 2004).
Arellano v. Primerica Life Insurance 332 P.3d 597 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Arellano v. Primerica Life Insurance 332 P.3d 597 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Id.; see also Nordstrom, ¶ 10, (stating a statute’s plain language is the most reliable indicator of its meaning).
Steinberger v. McVey 318 P.3d 419 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Steinberger v. McVey 318 P.3d 419 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Park, ¶ 12 , (citing Nordstrom, ¶ 10 , ) ("When determining the meaning of a statute, we first look to the plain language of the statute as the most reliable indicator of its meaning.”).
State v. Piotrowski 315 P.3d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Piotrowski 315 P.3d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Nordstrom, ¶ 10 , (“When determining the meaning of a statute, we look first to the plain language of the statute as the most reliable indicator of its meaning.”).
Harris Corp. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 312 P.3d 1143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Harris Corp. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 312 P.3d 1143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
“If the statute’s language is clear and unambiguous, we give effect to that language and do not apply any other rule of statutory construction.” Nordstrom, -57, ¶ 10 , -69 (App. 2004) (quoting In re Maricopa County Superior Court No. MH 2001-001139, ¶ 12 , ).
Melendez v. Hallmark Insurance 305 P.3d 392 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Alliance Trutrus, L.L.C. v. Carlson Real Estate Co. 270 P.3d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Alliance Trutrus, L.L.C. v. Carlson Real Estate Co. 270 P.3d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
When interpreting a statute, “[w]e look first to the plain language of the statute as the most reliable indicator of its meaning.” Nordstrom, ¶ 10 , ( ¶ 12 , ).
Arizona Department of Revenue v. South Point Energy Center, LLC 268 P.3d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Arizona Department of Revenue v. South Point Energy Center, LLC 268 P.3d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
In THE ESTATE OF MARY A. RILEY, AKA MARY AGNES RILEY, AKA MARY AGNES REILLY 266 P.3d 1078 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
In THE ESTATE OF MARY A. RILEY, AKA MARY AGNES RILEY, AKA MARY AGNES REILLY 266 P.3d 1078 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Nordstrom, Inc. v. Maricopa Cnty., 207 Ariz. 553, ¶ 10, -69 (App. 2004).
Sholes v. Fernando Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Sholes v. Fernando 268 P.3d 1112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Sholes v. Fernando Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
We defer to a trial court‟s factual findings and will not set them aside on appeal “unless they are clearly erroneous or not supported by substantial evidence.” Nordstrom, see also Ariz. R. Civ.
Sholes v. Fernando 268 P.3d 1112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
We defer to a trial court’s factual findings and will not set them aside on appeal “unless they are clearly erroneous or not supported by substantial evidence.” Nordstrom, , see also Ariz. R. Civ.
IB Property Holdings, LLC v. Rancho Del Mar Apartments Ltd. Partnership 263 P.3d 69 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
IB Property Holdings, LLC v. Rancho Del Mar Apartments Ltd. Partnership 263 P.3d 69 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
“We will not substitute our judgment for that of the trier of fact on matters pertaining to the credibility and weight of expert testimony.” Nordstrom, , see also Ariz. R. Civ.
Hahn v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 252 P.3d 1036 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Hahn v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 252 P.3d 1036 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Nordstrom, ¶ 10 , (internal quotation omitted).
SEMPRE LTD. PARTNERSHIP v. Maricopa County 235 P.3d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
SEMPRE LTD. PARTNERSHIP v. Maricopa County 235 P.3d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Buencamino v. Noftsinger 221 P.3d 41 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Buencamino v. Noftsinger 221 P.3d 41 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
New Sun, 221 Ariz. at 46, ¶ 12, 209 P.3d at 182 ; Nordstrom, ¶ 10
NEW SUN BUSINESS PARK, LLC v. Yuma County 209 P.3d 179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
NEW SUN BUSINESS PARK, LLC v. Yuma County 209 P.3d 179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Arizona Minority Coalition for Fair Redistricting v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission 121 P.3d 843 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Arizona Minority Coalition for Fair Redistricting v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission 121 P.3d 843 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
P. 52(a); Nordstrom, ¶ 18
SFPP, L.P. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 108 P.3d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005