Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Continental Casualty Co. v. Industrial Commission, 547 P.2d 470.
- Csizmadia v. Natl peo/the Mint Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- Csizmadia v. Natl peo/the Mint Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- State v. Watson 6 P.3d 752 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
-
State v. Watson
6 P.3d 752
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
(no statutory interpretation is needed if the intent of the statute is plain from its language).
- Gartin v. St. Joseph's Hospital & Medical Center 749 P.2d 941 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
- Gartin v. St. Joseph's Hospital & Medical Center 749 P.2d 941 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
- Hurley v. Industrial Commission 681 P.2d 377 Ariz. 1984
- Hurley v. Industrial Commission 681 P.2d 377 Ariz. 1984
- Hurley v. Industrial Commission 681 P.2d 463 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
-
Hurley v. Industrial Commission
681 P.2d 463
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Our supreme court has described it as “plain language” not requiring “construction or interpretation.”
- Arizona Lotus Corp. v. City of Phoenix 663 P.2d 1013 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
- Arizona Lotus Corp. v. City of Phoenix 663 P.2d 1013 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
- Marlar v. State 666 P.2d 504 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
- Marlar v. State 666 P.2d 504 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
- United Riggers Erectors v. Industrial Commission 640 P.2d 189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
- United Riggers Erectors v. Industrial Commission 640 P.2d 189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
- State v. Patchin 610 P.2d 1062 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
- State v. Patchin 610 P.2d 1062 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
- Schoonover v. Arizona Title Insurance & Trust Co. 616 P.2d 898 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
- Schoonover v. Arizona Title Insurance & Trust Co. 616 P.2d 898 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
- State v. SUPERIOR CT. IN AND FOR CTY. OF PIMA 585 P.2d 882 Ariz. 1978
-
State v. SUPERIOR CT. IN AND FOR CTY. OF PIMA
585 P.2d 882
Ariz. 1978
article, bring action thereon against the state * * *.” A.R.S § 12-824(B) provides: “Upon written demand of the attorney general, made at or before the time of answering, served upon the opposing party and filed with the court where the action is pending, the place of trial of any such action shall be changed to Maricopa County.” , “[n]o rule is more positively settled than that in construing a statute if the language is plain there is no occasion for construction or interpretation.” A.R.S.
- State v. Arnett 579 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1978
- State v. Arnett 579 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1978
- Waxler v. Industrial Commission 568 P.2d 1111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
- Waxler v. Industrial Commission 568 P.2d 1111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
- Kennecott Copper Corp. v. Industrial Commission 564 P.2d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
-
Kennecott Copper Corp. v. Industrial Commission
564 P.2d 407
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
held that written authorization for a claimant to leave the state under ARS § 23-1071(A) could not be given retroactively to the time the claimant left the state.