Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Southwestern Iron & Steel Industries, Inc. v. State, 597 P.2d 981.

30 citing documents.

CENTER FOR AZ v. AZ SECRETARY OF STATE Ariz. 2026
E.L. v. Hon Carman 500 P.3d 326 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
E.L. v. Hon Carman 500 P.3d 326 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Brent Randall Phillips v. Hon. o'neil/state Bar Ariz. 2017
Brent Randall Phillips v. Hon. o'neil/state Bar Ariz. 2017
Iron & Steel Indus., –80 (1979) (“[T]he expression of one or more items of a class and the exclusion of other items of the same class implies the legislative intent to exclude those items not so included.”); Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 93 (2012) (“The principle that a matter not cove
Zeman v. Baumkirchner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Zeman v. Baumkirchner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Arizona State University ex rel. Arizona Board of Regents v. Arizona State Retirement System 349 P.3d 220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Arizona State University ex rel. Arizona Board of Regents v. Arizona State Retirement System 349 P.3d 220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Iron & Steel Indus., -80 , -83 (1979) (“The doctrine of ‘expressio unius’ is not to be applied where its application contradicts the general meaning of the statute or state public policy.”))).
Rash v. Town of Mammoth 315 P.3d 1234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Rash v. Town of Mammoth 315 P.3d 1234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
v. State, -80, -83 (1979) (“[E]xpression of one or more items of a class and the exclusion of other items of the same class implies .
Microchip Technology Inc. v. State 283 P.3d 34 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Microchip Technology Inc. v. State 283 P.3d 34 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Iron & Steel Indus., -80 , -83 (1979).
Midtown Medical Group, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 206 P.3d 790 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Midtown Medical Group, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 206 P.3d 790 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Iron & Steel Indus., , ("The principle of [e]xpressio unius esl exclusio alteráis as used in statutory and administrative rule construction means that the expression of one or more items of a class and the exclusion of other items of the same class implies the legislative intent to exclude those items not so i
Gamez v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 141 P.3d 794 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State v. Fragozo 3 P.3d 1140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
State v. Fragozo 3 P.3d 1140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
See Southwestern Iron & Steel Indus.
Jennings v. Woods 982 P.2d 274 Ariz. 1999
Jennings v. Woods 982 P.2d 274 Ariz. 1999
See Southwestern Iron & Steel Indus., , Roller Village
Del E. Webb Cactus Development, Inc. v. Jessup 863 P.2d 260 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Del E. Webb Cactus Development, Inc. v. Jessup 863 P.2d 260 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Following general principles of statutory construction, Southwestern Iron and Steel Indus., , we believe that this statute covers golf carts as a matter of law, because they were not specifically included in the list of exempt vehicles set forth in A.R.S.
Burton v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 801 P.2d 473 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Burton v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 801 P.2d 473 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
See Southwestern Iron and Steel Industries
Arizona Bd. of Regents for and on Behalf of University of Arizona v. State Ex Rel. State, Public … 771 P.2d 880 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Arizona Bd. of Regents for and on Behalf of University of Arizona v. State Ex Rel. State, Public … 771 P.2d 880 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
See, , Southwestern Iron and Steel Industries
Roller Village, Inc. v. Superior Court 741 P.2d 328 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Roller Village, Inc. v. Superior Court 741 P.2d 328 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
See Southwestern Iron and Steel Industries, , -06 , -74 (1967).
Pima County v. Heinfeld 654 P.2d 281 Ariz. 1982
Pima County v. Heinfeld 654 P.2d 281 Ariz. 1982
Southwestern Iron & , see National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. National Association of Railroad Passengers, 414 U.S. 453 , 94 S.Ct.