Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State Ex Rel. Larson v. Farley, 471 P.2d 731.

199 citing documents.

State v. Jones 218 P.3d 1012 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Cicoria v. Cole 215 P.3d 402 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Cicoria v. Cole 215 P.3d 402 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
¶ 13 , (courts construe statutory provisions in context with related provisions and in light of their placement in the statutory scheme); -61, ¶¶ 11-12 , -51 (A
Arizona Department of Adminstration v. Cox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Arizona Department of Adminstration v. Cox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
COUNTY OF COCHISE v. SEBASTIAO FARIA and MARIA FARI Dba FARIA DAIRY Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
COUNTY OF COCHISE v. SEBASTIAO FARIA and MARIA FARI Dba FARIA DAIRY Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Joseph M. Arpaio v. Citizen Publishing Co. Mark Kimble Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Joseph M. Arpaio v. Citizen Publishing Co. Mark Kimble Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
in which our supreme court stated that we should interpret a statute “in conjunction with other statutes to the end that they may be harmonious and consistent,” and “[i]f the statutes relate to the same subject or have the same general purpose—that is, statutes which are in pari mate
Hounshell v. White 199 P.3d 636 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Hounshell v. White 199 P.3d 636 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
In re MH 2007-000937 189 P.3d 1090 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
In re MH 2007-000937 189 P.3d 1090 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Action Marine, Inc. 181 P.3d 188 Ariz. 2008
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Action Marine, Inc. 181 P.3d 188 Ariz. 2008
and avoid interpretations that render statutory provisions meaningless, unnecessary, or duplicative, see
In Re Reymundo F. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
In Re Reymundo F. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
McCloud v. State of Arizona Dept. of Public Safety And Kimbro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
McCloud v. State of Arizona Dept. of Public Safety And Kimbro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
(alteration in Ruth Fisher).
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Ditsworth 166 P.3d 130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Ditsworth 166 P.3d 130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State of Arizona v. Alejandro Chaparro Romero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Alejandro Chaparro Romero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
); (§ 13-901.01 interpreted in conjunction with sentencing provisions found in chapter 34 because statutes in pari materia).
Lincoln v. Holt 156 P.3d 438 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Lincoln v. Holt 156 P.3d 438 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
) (“If the statutes relate to the same subject or have the same general purpose ...
Yarbrough v. Montoya-Paez 147 P.3d 755 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Yarbrough v. Montoya-Paez 147 P.3d 755 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Moreno v. Jones 139 P.3d 612 Ariz. 2006
Moreno v. Jones 139 P.3d 612 Ariz. 2006
Barth v. Cochise County 138 P.3d 1186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Barth v. Cochise County 138 P.3d 1186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
P.2d 731 (1970), we held that if it is reasonably practical, a statute should 7 be explained in conjunction with other statutes to the end that they may be harmonious and consistent; and, if statutes relate to
State ex rel. Department of Economic Security v. Demetz 130 P.3d 986 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State ex rel. Department of Economic Security v. Demetz 130 P.3d 986 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Foster v. Weir Orthodontic Centers of Arizona, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Foster v. Weir Orthodontic Centers of Arizona, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Williams v. Miles 128 P.3d 778 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Williams v. Miles 128 P.3d 778 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
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
State v. Jackson 113 P.3d 112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Jackson 113 P.3d 112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
734 *472 (1970) (“If reasonably practical, a statute should be explained in conjunction with other statutes to the end that they may be harmonious and consistent.”); , (“Courts construe seemingly conflicting statutes in harmony when pos
In Re Stephanie N. 110 P.3d 1280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
In Re Stephanie N. 110 P.3d 1280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Barraza 104 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Barraza 104 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
In Re Wilputte S. 100 P.3d 929 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
In Re Wilputte S. 100 P.3d 929 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
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
Riepe v. Riepe 91 P.3d 312 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by