Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Arizona Department of Revenue v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 937 P.2d 363.

26 citing documents.

Mesquite v. Ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Mesquite v. Ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Motors Acceptance Corp., and we impose these sanctions “with great reservation,” Ariz. Tax Research Ass’n v. Dep’t of Rev., (quotation omitted).
Tsanos v. Zistatsis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Tsanos v. Zistatsis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Jones v. Denning Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Jones v. Denning Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Motors Acceptance Corp., see also ARCAP 25 (authorizing the imposition of sanctions if appeal was frivolous or filed solely for the purpose of delay).
Terterova v. byous/nestor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Terterova v. byous/nestor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Motors Acceptance Corp., and we impose ARCAP 25 sanctions with “great reservation,” Ariz. Tax Research Ass’n v. Dep’t of Revenue
Awsienko v. Cohen 257 P.3d 175 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Awsienko v. Cohen 257 P.3d 175 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Robinson v. Kay Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Robinson v. Kay Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Motors Acceptance Corp., (“The determination to award or decline attorney‟s fees [pursuant to Rule 25] is within this Court‟s discretion.”).
Progressive Casualty Insurance v. Estate of Palomera-Ruiz 231 P.3d 384 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Progressive Casualty Insurance v. Estate of Palomera-Ruiz 231 P.3d 384 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
City of Phoenix v. Fields 193 P.3d 782 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
City of Phoenix v. Fields 193 P.3d 782 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Motors Acceptance Corp., , neither of these exceptions apply here.
In Re Hyrum H. 131 P.3d 1058 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
In Re Hyrum H. 131 P.3d 1058 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Motors Acceptance Corp., , (“Where the legislature has used a particular term in one place in a statute and has excluded it in another place in the same statute, a court should not read that term into the provision from which the legislature has not chosen to omit it.”) ¶ 22 Furthermore, in Charles B., this
John C. Lincoln Hospital v. Maricopa County 96 P.3d 530 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
John C. Lincoln Hospital v. Maricopa County 96 P.3d 530 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Motors Acceptance Corp., , (stating Arizona courts will interpret a statute contrary to its plain meaning “only if necessary to effectuate the legislature’s clearly expressed contrary intent or to avoid an absurd result that the legislature could not in any event have intended”)
Trust v. County of Yuma 69 P.3d 510 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Trust v. County of Yuma 69 P.3d 510 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Calik v. Superior Court 979 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Calik v. Superior Court 979 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Inzunza-Ortega v. Superior Court 968 P.2d 631 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Inzunza-Ortega v. Superior Court 968 P.2d 631 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998