Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Sellinger v. Freeway Mobile Home Sales, Inc., 521 P.2d 1119.

124 citing documents.

Henderson v. Hon. moskowitz/sullivan Ariz. 2025
Henderson v. Hon. moskowitz/sullivan Ariz. 2025
See § 44-1521(5) (defining “merchandise” to include services); Sellinger v. Freeway Mobile Home Sales, Inc., (recognizing a private right of action to enforce the Act).
Burns v. City of Tucson 432 P.3d 953 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Burns v. City of Tucson 432 P.3d 953 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
No. 8 , , ¶ 9, (no way of holding school districts accountable for misappropriation of funds apart from implied right of action); Sellinger v. Freeway Mobile Home Sales, Inc. , , 576, (implied right of action "highly desirable in order to control fraud in the marketplace").
Gersten v. Sun Pain Management, P.L.L.C. 395 P.3d 310 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Gersten v. Sun Pain Management, P.L.L.C. 395 P.3d 310 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Arizona courts have implied a private cause of action under various statutory schemes, recognizing that “[i]n interpreting statutes, a court will look to the intent of the Legislature” and “consider the context of the statute, the language used, the subject matter, the effects and consequences, and the spirit and purpose of the law.” Sellinger v. Freeway Mobile Home Sales, Inc., , (citation omitted), quoted in Napier, 191 Ariz. at 240-41, ¶ 9 , 954 P.2d at 1391-92 .
Murray v. Farmers Insurance Company of Arizona .... 366 P.3d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Murray v. Farmers Insurance Company of Arizona .... 366 P.3d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
See Sellinger v. Freeway Mobile Home Sales, Inc.
Watts v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp. 342 P.3d 847 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Watts v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp. 342 P.3d 847 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Sellinger v. Freeway Mobile Home Sales, Inc.
Sands v. bill/zinkel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Sands v. bill/zinkel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
See Sellinger v. Freeway Mobile Home Sales, Inc., (punitive damages available if defendant’s conduct was “wanton, reckless or show[ed] spite or ill-will or where there [was] a reckless indifference to the interests of others” (citations omitted)).
Shaw v. CTVT Motors, Inc. 300 P.3d 907 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Shaw v. CTVT Motors, Inc. 300 P.3d 907 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Sellinger v. Freeway Mobile Home Sales, Inc., -76 , -22 (1974).
Sullivan v. Pulte Home Corp. 290 P.3d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Sullivan v. Pulte Home Corp. 290 P.3d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Sellinger v. Freeway Mobile Home Sales, Inc.
Lowe v. Pima County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Lowe v. Pima County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
See Sellinger v. Freeway Mobile Home Sales, Inc., Camelback Plaza Dev., L.C.
LaWALL v. PIMA COUNTY MERIT COMMISSION And SCAMMON 134 P.3d 394 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
LaWALL v. PIMA COUNTY MERIT COMMISSION And SCAMMON 134 P.3d 394 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
5 ¶6 The Commission argues the county merit commission enabling statutes are remedial in nature and should be “liberally construed to achieve the special purpose of the statute[s].” Remedial statutes “are designed to redress existing grievances and introduce regulations conducive to the public good.” Sellinger v. Freeway Mobile Home Sales, Inc.
Douglas v. Governing Board of the Window Rock Consolidated School District No. 8 78 P.3d 1065 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Douglas v. Governing Board of the Window Rock Consolidated School District No. 8 78 P.3d 1065 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
To determine whether a statute creates a private cause of action, we consider “the context of the statute, the language used, the subject matter, the effects and consequences, and the spirit and purpose of the law.” Sellinger v. Freeway Mobile Home Sales, Inc., , see also Transamerica Fin.
Burke v. Az State Retirement Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Burke v. Az State Retirement Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
DVM Co. v. Stag Tobacconist, Ltd., P.2d 907 (1983); Sellinger v. Freeway Mobile Home Sales, Inc., P.2d 1119 (1974).
Swanson v. Image Bank, Inc. 43 P.3d 174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Swanson v. Image Bank, Inc. 43 P.3d 174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Sellinger v. Freeway Mobile Home Sales, Inc.
Napier v. Bertram 954 P.2d 1389 Ariz. 1998
Napier v. Bertram 954 P.2d 1389 Ariz. 1998
Therefore, in determining whether Napier may maintain an action under § 28-1233, we consider “the context of the statutes, the language used, the subject matter, the effects and consequences, and the spirit and purpose of the law.” Sellinger v. Freeway Mobile *241 Home Sales, Inc.
State Compensation Fund v. Superior Court 948 P.2d 499 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State Compensation Fund v. Superior Court 948 P.2d 499 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Sellinger v. Freeway Mobile Home Sales, Inc.
Waste Manufacturing & Leasing Corp. v. Hambicki 900 P.2d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Waste Manufacturing & Leasing Corp. v. Hambicki 900 P.2d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
See Sellinger v. Freeway Mobile Home Sales, Inc.
Special Fund Division v. Industrial Commission 909 P.2d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Special Fund Division v. Industrial Commission 909 P.2d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Sellinger v. Freeway Mobile Home Sales, Inc.
Mail Boxes v. Industrial Commission 888 P.2d 777 Ariz. 1995
Mail Boxes v. Industrial Commission 888 P.2d 777 Ariz. 1995
Sellinger v. Freeway Mobile Home Sales, Inc.
Alaface v. National Investment Co. 892 P.2d 1375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Alaface v. National Investment Co. 892 P.2d 1375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
§ 44-1521 et seq.; Sellinger v. Freeway Mobile Home Sales, Inc., -76 , -22 (1974).
Maurer v. Cerkvenik-Anderson Travel, Inc. 890 P.2d 69 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Maurer v. Cerkvenik-Anderson Travel, Inc. 890 P.2d 69 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Sellinger v. Freeway Mobile Home Sales, Inc.
Collins v. State 803 P.2d 130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Collins v. State 803 P.2d 130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Sellinger v. Freeway Mobile Home Sales, Inc.
Chavarria v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 798 P.2d 1343 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Chavarria v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 798 P.2d 1343 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Sellinger v. Freeway Mobile Home Sales, Inc., , , 62 A.L.R.3d 161 (1974); , State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins.
Matter of Estate of Groves 788 P.2d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Matter of Estate of Groves 788 P.2d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Sellinger v. Freeway Mobile Home Sales, Inc.
Guibault v. Pima County 778 P.2d 1342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Guibault v. Pima County 778 P.2d 1342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Instead, the court reiterated the standard previously set forth in Sellinger v. Freeway Mobile Home Sales, Inc., , that interpretation of a statute requires “consideration of the context of the statutes, the language used, the subject matter, the effects and consequences, and the spirit and purpose of the law.” 158 Ariz. at 116 , 761 P.2d at 1020 .
Colberg v. Rellinger 770 P.2d 346 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Colberg v. Rellinger 770 P.2d 346 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Sellinger v. Freeway Mobile Home Sales, Inc., , *48 (1974).