Cited by

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

199 citing documents.

Gibbs v. O'Malley Lumber Co. 868 P.2d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Gibbs v. O'Malley Lumber Co. 868 P.2d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
we held that if it is reasonably practical, a statute should be explained in conjunction with other statutes to the end that they may be harmonious and consistent; and, if statutes relate to the same subject and are thus in pari materia, they should be construed together with other related statu
In Re the Commitment of an Alleged Mentally Disordered Person MH 91-00558 854 P.2d 1207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
In Re the Commitment of an Alleged Mentally Disordered Person MH 91-00558 854 P.2d 1207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
(statutes which relate to same subject should be read and construed together, as though they constitute one law).
State v. Chavez 834 P.2d 825 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Chavez 834 P.2d 825 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
: If reasonably practical, a statute should be explained in conjunction with other statutes to the end that they may be harmonious and consistent.
Rotter v. Coconino County 818 P.2d 704 Ariz. 1991
Rotter v. Coconino County 818 P.2d 704 Ariz. 1991
(statutes relating to the same subject should be construed together because legislature’s intent must be ascertained from the entire system of related statutes.
State v. Thomason 783 P.2d 809 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Thomason 783 P.2d 809 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Clements 776 P.2d 801 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Clements 776 P.2d 801 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Pima County by City of Tucson v. Maya Const. Co. 761 P.2d 1055 Ariz. 1988
Pima County by City of Tucson v. Maya Const. Co. 761 P.2d 1055 Ariz. 1988
we held that if it is reasonably practical, a statute should be explained in conjunction with other statutes to the end that they may be harmonious and consistent; and, if statutes relate to the same subject and are thus in pari materia, they should be construed together with other related statu
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Superior Court 764 P.2d 759 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Superior Court 764 P.2d 759 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
: If reasonably practical, a statute should be explained in conjunction with other statutes to the end that they may be harmonious and consistent.
State v. Cuen 761 P.2d 160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
State v. Cuen 761 P.2d 160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
In Re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Action No. J-78632 712 P.2d 431 Ariz. 1986
In Re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Action No. J-78632 712 P.2d 431 Ariz. 1986
County of Maricopa v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 699 P.2d 389 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
County of Maricopa v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 699 P.2d 389 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State v. Sweet 693 P.2d 921 Ariz. 1985
State v. Sweet 693 P.2d 921 Ariz. 1985
State v. Benally 669 P.2d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Benally 669 P.2d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Merrill 665 P.2d 1022 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Merrill 665 P.2d 1022 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Chase v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 641 P.2d 1305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Chase v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 641 P.2d 1305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Mackey, 15 Ariz.App.
McLeod v. Chilton 643 P.2d 712 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
McLeod v. Chilton 643 P.2d 712 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
our supreme court stated: The general rule is that the court may look to prior and contemporaneous statutes in construing the meaning of a statute which is uncertain and on its face susceptible to more than one interpretation.
State v. Denny 569 P.2d 303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Denny 569 P.2d 303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
citing City of Mesa v. Salt River Project Agr.
City Court of Phoenix v. State ex rel. Baumert 565 P.2d 531 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
City Court of Phoenix v. State ex rel. Baumert 565 P.2d 531 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Rehurek v. Welcome, 26 Ariz.App.
Transamerica Title Insurance Co. v. Cochise County 548 P.2d 416 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Transamerica Title Insurance Co. v. Cochise County 548 P.2d 416 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
our Supreme Court stated: “The general rule is that the court may look to prior and contemporaneous statutes in construing the meaning of a statute which is uncertain and on its face susceptible to more than one interpretation.
Williams v. Williams 531 P.2d 924 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Williams v. Williams 531 P.2d 924 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
our Supreme Court sets forth and approves of this canon of construction in the following terms: The general rule is that the court may look to prior and contemporaneous statutes in construing the meaning of a statute which is uncertain and on its face susceptible to more than one interpretation.
Shirley v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR COUNTY OF APACHE 513 P.2d 939 Ariz. 1973
Shirley v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR COUNTY OF APACHE 513 P.2d 939 Ariz. 1973
City of Mesa v. Salt River Project Agr.
In Re Maricopa County Appeal 489 P.2d 1238 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
In Re Maricopa County Appeal 489 P.2d 1238 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Beasley v. Industrial Commission 489 P.2d 57 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
In Re Adoption of Baby Boy 472 P.2d 64 Ariz. 1970
Natural Mother v. Adopting Parents 472 P.2d 64 Ariz. 1970
Natural Mother v. Adopting Parents 472 P.2d 64 Ariz. 1970
E. Leigh Larson, v. Gordon Farley, Judge, and Shelley, Real Party in Interest, , we held: “ * * * If the statutes relate to the same subject or have the same general purpose — that is, statutes which are in pari materia — they should be read in connection with, or should be construed together with other related statutes, as though they constituted one law.
In Re Adoption of Baby Boy 472 P.2d 64 Ariz. 1970
E. Leigh Larson, v. Gordon Farley, Judge, and Shelley, Real Party in Interest, , we held: "* * * If the statutes relate to the same subject or have the same general purpose that is, statutes which are in pari materia they should be read in connection with, or should be construed together with other related statutes, as though they constituted one law.