Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Superior Court for Maricopa County, 550 P.2d 626.

70 citing documents.

Shadid v. State 421 P.3d 160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Shadid v. State 421 P.3d 160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
See State v. Superior Court ( Kerr-McGee Corp. ), , 249, , 627 (1976) (law interpreted to avoid rendering any text "superfluous, void, contradictory, or insignificant").
Wade v. Arizona State Retirement System 370 P.3d 132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Wade v. Arizona State Retirement System 370 P.3d 132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Whenever possible, we must interpret a statute so that “no clause, sentence, or word is rendered superfluous, void, contradictory or insignificant.” State v. Superior Court (Kerr-McGee Corp.)
STATE EX REL. INDUS. COM'N v. Word 224 P.3d 169 Ariz. 2010
STATE EX REL. INDUS. COM'N v. Word 224 P.3d 169 Ariz. 2010
(stating that a statute should be read so that “no clause, sentence, or word is rendered superfluous”).
Sklar v. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS 207 P.3d 702 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Sklar v. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS 207 P.3d 702 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
¶ 11 , *452 State v. Superior Court (Kerr-McGee Corp.)
Committee for Preservation of Established Neighborhoods v. Riffel 141 P.3d 422 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Committee for Preservation of Established Neighborhoods v. Riffel 141 P.3d 422 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
¶ 11 , State v. Superior Court (Kerr-McGee Corp.)
Mejak v. Granville 136 P.3d 874 Ariz. 2006
Mejak v. Granville 136 P.3d 874 Ariz. 2006
Speros v. Yu 83 P.3d 1094 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Speros v. Yu 83 P.3d 1094 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Superior Court (Kerr-McGee Corp.)
State of Arizona v. Jeffrey Allen Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Jeffrey Allen Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Accordingly, we must give meaning to each word or phrase so that none “is rendered superfluous, void, contradictory or insignificant.” see also Fraternal Order of Eagles, Inc. v. City of Tucson, 168 Ariz. 598, (statutes construed to give effect to every word); Weitekamp v. Fireman’s Fund Ins.
Welch-Doden v. Roberts 42 P.3d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Welch-Doden v. Roberts 42 P.3d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Superior Court (Kerr-McGee Corp.)
Jennings v. Woods 982 P.2d 274 Ariz. 1999
Jennings v. Woods 982 P.2d 274 Ariz. 1999
Purpose of the Section 40-101 Prohibitions — The Avoidance of Conflicts ¶ 65 Just as Jones sought to avoid absurd results, we assess whether application of the statute to West creates an untenable result or otherwise fails to “effect the object” of section 40-101 and “promote justice.” , -88 (1953); (considering the “effects and consequences, and the spirit and purpose of the law”).
State v. Tarango 914 P.2d 1300 Ariz. 1996
State v. Tarango 914 P.2d 1300 Ariz. 1996
v. City of Phoenix, , , State v. Superior Court (Kerr-McGee Corp.)
Patterson v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Office 865 P.2d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Patterson v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Office 865 P.2d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Estate of Hernandez v. Arizona Board of Regents 838 P.2d 1283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Estate of Hernandez v. Arizona Board of Regents 838 P.2d 1283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Greves v. Ohio State Life Insurance 821 P.2d 757 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Greves v. Ohio State Life Insurance 821 P.2d 757 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Whenever possible, a statute should be interpreted so that “no clause, sentence, or word is rendered superfluous, void, contradictory or insignificant.”
Devenir Associates v. City of Phoenix 821 P.2d 161 Ariz. 1991
Devenir Associates v. City of Phoenix 821 P.2d 161 Ariz. 1991
Fraternal Order of Eagles, Inc. v. City of Tucson 816 P.2d 255 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Fraternal Order of Eagles, Inc. v. City of Tucson 816 P.2d 255 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Rowe International, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 796 P.2d 924 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Rowe International, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 796 P.2d 924 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Arnold v. Arizona Department of Health Services 775 P.2d 521 Ariz. 1989
Arnold v. Arizona Department of Health Services 775 P.2d 521 Ariz. 1989
Arizona Water Co. v. Arizona Department of Water Resources 770 P.2d 370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Arizona Water Co. v. Arizona Department of Water Resources 770 P.2d 370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
The law will be given, whenever possible, such an effect that no clause, sentence, or word is rendered superfluous, void, contradictory or insignificant.”
Johnson v. SUPERIOR COURT, PIMA COUNTY 763 P.2d 1382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Johnson v. SUPERIOR COURT, PIMA COUNTY 763 P.2d 1382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Prairie State Bank v. Internal Revenue Service 745 P.2d 966 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Prairie State Bank v. Internal Revenue Service 745 P.2d 966 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Humana Hospital Desert Valley v. Superior Court 742 P.2d 1382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Humana Hospital Desert Valley v. Superior Court 742 P.2d 1382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Rodriguez 735 P.2d 792 Ariz. 1987
State v. Rodriguez 735 P.2d 792 Ariz. 1987
First, we must give some content to the word “calendar.” , (no word in statute should be rendered superfluous, void, contradictory, or insignificant).
Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund v. Ueki 724 P.2d 70 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund v. Ueki 724 P.2d 70 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Gortarez v. Smitty’s Super Valu, Inc.
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. City of Tempe 708 P.2d 1335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. City of Tempe 708 P.2d 1335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985