Cited by

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

199 citing documents.

Pinal Vista Properties, L.L.C. v. Turnbull 91 P.3d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Pinal Vista Properties, L.L.C. v. Turnbull 91 P.3d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
People's Choice TV Corp. v. City of Tucson 46 P.3d 412 Ariz. 2002
People's Choice TV Corp. v. City of Tucson 46 P.3d 412 Ariz. 2002
Marriage of Woodworth v. Woodworth 42 P.3d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Marriage of Woodworth v. Woodworth 42 P.3d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Ruth Fisher Elementary School District v. Buckeye Union High School District 41 P.3d 645 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Ruth Fisher Elementary School District v. Buckeye Union High School District 41 P.3d 645 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Steiger v. Woods 32 P.3d 19 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Steiger v. Woods 32 P.3d 19 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Southwest Gas Corp. v. Industrial Commission 25 P.3d 1164 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Southwest Gas Corp. v. Industrial Commission 25 P.3d 1164 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Camelback Plaza Development, L.C. v. Hard Rock Café International (Phoenix), Inc. 25 P.3d 8 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Camelback Plaza Development, L.C. v. Hard Rock Café International (Phoenix), Inc. 25 P.3d 8 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Gunnell v. Arizona Public Service Co. 18 P.3d 176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Bauza Holdings, L.L.C. v. Primeco, Inc. 18 P.3d 132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Bauza Holdings, L.L.C. v. Primeco, Inc. 18 P.3d 132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Flynt 13 P.3d 1209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
State v. Flynt 13 P.3d 1209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
State v. Samano 11 P.3d 1045 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Wolter 3 P.3d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Wolter 3 P.3d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Unique Equipment Co. v. TRW Vehicle Safety Systems, Inc. 3 P.3d 970 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Unique Equipment Co. v. TRW Vehicle Safety Systems, Inc. 3 P.3d 970 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Zuther v. State 3 P.3d 965 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Zuther v. State 3 P.3d 965 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
(“If the statutes relate to the same subject ...
Hansson v. Arizona State Board of Dental Examiners 985 P.2d 551 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Hansson v. Arizona State Board of Dental Examiners 985 P.2d 551 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State ex rel. Romley v. Johnson 993 P.2d 453 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State ex rel. Romley v. Johnson 993 P.2d 453 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Goddard v. Superior Court 956 P.2d 529 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Goddard v. Superior Court 956 P.2d 529 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
(legislative intent “must be ascertained not alone from the literal meaning of the wording of the statutes but also from the view of the whole system of related statutes”); In re Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JD-6236, , 452 n. 2, , 1009 n. 2 (
City of Tucson v. Pima County 949 P.2d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
City of Tucson v. Pima County 949 P.2d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Baker v. SUPERIOR COURT FOR MARICOPA CTY. 947 P.2d 910 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Baker v. SUPERIOR COURT FOR MARICOPA CTY. 947 P.2d 910 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Soto v. Superior Court 949 P.2d 539 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Soto v. Superior Court 949 P.2d 539 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
(statutes which relate to same subject should be harmonized “as though they constituted one law,” and as if “governed by one spirit and policy”).
Centric-Jones Co. v. Town of Marana 937 P.2d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Centric-Jones Co. v. Town of Marana 937 P.2d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Superior Court 930 P.2d 488 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Superior Court 930 P.2d 488 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
U.S. Xpress, Inc. v. Arizona Tax Court 879 P.2d 371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
U.S. Xpress, Inc. v. Arizona Tax Court 879 P.2d 371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Buhman 887 P.2d 582 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Buhman 887 P.2d 582 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
: If reasonably practical, a statute should be explained in conjunction with other statutes to the end that they may be harmonious and consistent.
JV-130549 v. Superior Court 871 P.2d 758 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
JV-130549 v. Superior Court 871 P.2d 758 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
(“If reasonably practical, a statute should be explained in conjunction with other statutes to the end that they may be harmonious and consistent.”).
Rail N Ranch Corp. v. Hassell 868 P.2d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Rail N Ranch Corp. v. Hassell 868 P.2d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994