Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Department of Revenue v. Southern Union Gas Co., 582 P.2d 158.

59 citing documents.

In the Matter of William John Chalmers Ariz. 2025
In the Matter of William John Chalmers Ariz. 2025
Lewis v. Debord and Nelson-Debord 335 P.3d 1136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Lewis v. Debord and Nelson-Debord 335 P.3d 1136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Priority commonly means “[t]he status of being earlier in time or higher in degree or rank; 6 P.2d 158 (1978), the Lewises argue that the requirement to attach an information statement is directory, rather than mandatory, notwithstanding the use of the term “shall” in §§ 33-961(C) and 33-967(A).
Steven Lane Fuller v. State of Arizona 314 P.3d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Steven Lane Fuller v. State of Arizona 314 P.3d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
See, e.g., Dep’t (finding department of revenue’s appeal from tax board’s valuation of property not invalid for failure to hold trial within ninety days, and therefore would not be dismissed “without more, such as a showing that the opposing party has suffered substantial detriment”); Joshua J. v. Ariz.
Joshua J. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 286 P.3d 166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Joshua J. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 286 P.3d 166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
at 364 n. 1, ¶ 9, 18 P.3d at 158 n. 1 (citing Dep’t , ).
Slaughter v. Maricopa County 258 P.3d 141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Slaughter v. Maricopa County 258 P.3d 141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
7 ¶ 16 Further, we reject Slaughter’s argument that under Dept, , the superior court did not have a sufficient basis to dismiss her complaint against the County.
State v. UNKEFER 239 P.3d 749 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. UNKEFER 239 P.3d 749 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Dep’t , (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 547 (4th ed.1968)); -54, ¶¶9-15 , -37 (App.2003) (finding statute directory and failure of police to follow it did not defeat jurisdiction).
State v. Barraza 104 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Way v. State 67 P.3d 1232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Way v. State 67 P.3d 1232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
-14 , -60 (1978); Forino, 191 Ariz. at 80 , 952 P.2d at 318 .
HCZ Construction Inc. v. First Franklin Financial Corp. 18 P.3d 155 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
HCZ Construction Inc. v. First Franklin Financial Corp. 18 P.3d 155 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Arizona Downs v. Arizona Horsemen’s Found., -55 , -58 (1981); Dep’t , (citation omitted).
Lavidas v. Smith 987 P.2d 212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Lavidas v. Smith 987 P.2d 212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
A provision is mandatory when failure to follow it renders the proceeding to which it relates illegal and void; it is directory when the failure to follow it does not invalidate the proceedings.” -14 , -60 (1978) (citations omitted).
Forino v. Arizona Department of Transportation 952 P.2d 315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Forino v. Arizona Department of Transportation 952 P.2d 315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Centric-Jones Co. v. Town of Marana 937 P.2d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Centric-Jones Co. v. Town of Marana 937 P.2d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
(acknowledging but refusing to apply maxim by finding that the undesirable consequence of applying it was the controlling factor in determining legislative intent).
Scottsdale Princess Partnership v. Maricopa County 916 P.2d 1084 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Scottsdale Princess Partnership v. Maricopa County 916 P.2d 1084 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
“Language, mandatory in form, may be deemed directory when the legislative purpose can best be carried out by such construction.”
Watahomigie v. BD. OF WATER QUALITY APP. 887 P.2d 550 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Watahomigie v. BD. OF WATER QUALITY APP. 887 P.2d 550 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
-14 , -60 (1978) (citations omitted); see 3 Norman J. Singer, Statutes and Statutory Construction § 57.01 (5th ed. 1992).
Watahomigie v. Arizona Board of Water Quality Appeals 887 P.2d 550 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Watahomigie v. Arizona Board of Water Quality Appeals 887 P.2d 550 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
which is a mere direction or instruction of no obligatory force, and involving no invalidating consequence for its disregard ____” -14 , -60 (1978) (citations omitted); see 3 Norman J. Singer, Statutes and Statutory Construction § 57.01 (5th ed. 1992).
Canon School District No. 50 v. W.E.S. Construction Co. 869 P.2d 500 Ariz. 1994
Canon School District No. 50 v. W.E.S. Construction Co. 869 P.2d 500 Ariz. 1994
Hampton v. Glendale Union High School District 837 P.2d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Hampton v. Glendale Union High School District 837 P.2d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
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
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 781 P.2d 605 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 781 P.2d 605 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Neumann Caribbean International, Ltd. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 754 P.2d 308 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Neumann Caribbean International, Ltd. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 754 P.2d 308 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Navopache Electric Co-Op, Inc. 727 P.2d 813 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Navopache Electric Co-Op, Inc. 727 P.2d 813 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Bowles v. Arizona Department of Revenue 679 P.2d 96 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Bowles v. Arizona Department of Revenue 679 P.2d 96 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Caldwell v. ARIZONA STATE BD. OF DENTAL EXAM. 670 P.2d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Caldwell v. ARIZONA STATE BD. OF DENTAL EXAM. 670 P.2d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Bassett v. City of Tucson 669 P.2d 976 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Bassett v. City of Tucson 669 P.2d 976 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Traylor v. Thorneycroft 657 P.2d 895 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Traylor v. Thorneycroft 657 P.2d 895 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Suppeland v. Nilz 623 P.2d 832 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980