Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Ross v. Industrial Commission, 540 P.2d 1234.

56 citing documents.

Moya v. Industrial Commission 557 P.2d 1091 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Moya v. Industrial Commission 557 P.2d 1091 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Stine v. Industrial Commission, 20 Ariz.App.
Smith v. Pima County Law Enforcement Council 548 P.2d 1151 Ariz. 1976
Smith v. Pima County Law Enforcement Council 548 P.2d 1151 Ariz. 1976
Smith v. Pima County Law Enforcement Council 541 P.2d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Smith v. Pima County Law Enforcement Council 541 P.2d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
“Any” has different meanings in different contexts, but in the present case “any” clearly means “all.” The Arizona Supreme Court recently stated in Ross v. Industrial Commission, Ariz., : “Where the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous and conveys a *122 clear and definite meaning, there is no occasion to interpret the statute, and courts must follow the meaning of the statute as written.” A.R.S.