DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Bowslaugh v. Bowslaugh, 617 P.2d 25.

28 citing documents.

  • MacHu v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Followed MacHu v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    In interpreting a statute, we “look first to the statute’s words,” (), and “when the language of the statute is clear, we follow its direction without resorting to other methods of statutory interpretation,“ Pinal Vista Prop., 208 Ariz. at 190, ¶ 10; (explaining that we “leav[e] any deficiencies or inequities to be corrected by the legislature.”).
  • Doe v. Arizona Board of Regents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Doe v. Arizona Board of Regents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    (), and “adhere to the plain language of the statute, leaving any deficiencies or inequities to be corrected by the legislature,”
  • Benedict v. Total Transit Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Benedict v. Total Transit Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    (), and “adhere to the plain language of the statute, leaving any deficiencies or inequities to be corrected by the legislature,”
  • Walsh v. Advanced Cardiac Specialists Chartered 258 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • Walsh v. Advanced Cardiac Specialists Chartered 258 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
    (“A cause of action for wrongful death is purely statutory in origin and we must adhere to the plain language of the statute, leaving any deficiencies or inequities to be corrected by the legislature.”); ¶ 12 , (App.2010
  • Bither v. Country Mutual Insurance 245 P.3d 883 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • Bither v. Country Mutual Insurance 245 P.3d 883 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    In re Estate of Winn v. Plaza Healthcare, Inc., ¶ 12 , , (holding that a wrongful death action is “purely statutory in origin and we must adhere to the plain language of the statute, leaving any deficiencies or inequities to be corrected by the legislature.”).
  • In Re Estate of Winn 237 P.3d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • In Re Estate of Winn 237 P.3d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    (holding that a wrongful death action is "purely statutory in origin and we must adhere to the plain language of the statute, leaving any deficiencies or inequities to be corrected by the legislature."
  • State v. Huskie 44 P.3d 161 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
  • State v. Huskie 44 P.3d 161 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
    To reach the conclusion advanced by *286 the state, we would have to re-write those statutes to provide that post-majority support “shall continue throughout the last month in which the child has attended high school.” “The addition of such a phrase, however benevolent the intent, would be an infringement upon the province of the legislature.”
  • In Re Leon G. 18 P.3d 169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • In Re Leon G. 18 P.3d 169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
    what the constitution contains, but not what it should contain”); , (adding phrase to statute by "judicial fiat,” despite benevolent intent, “would be an infringement upon the province of the legislature”); , ("court[s] should avoid legislating a particular result by judicial construction”); First Na
  • Carrasco v. State 19 P.3d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
  • Carrasco v. State 19 P.3d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
    *496 ¶4 , for the proposition that the estate could not recover other damages because Nancy, a named statutory wrongful death beneficiary, had survived Sky.
  • Knauss v. DND Neffson Co. 963 P.2d 271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
  • Knauss v. DND Neffson Co. 963 P.2d 271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
    As our supreme court has stated, “we must adhere to the plain language of the statute, leaving any deficiencies or inequities to be corrected by the legislature.”
  • James v. Phoenix General Hospital, Inc. 744 P.2d 695 Ariz. 1987
  • James v. Phoenix General Hospital, Inc. 744 P.2d 695 Ariz. 1987
    See Bowslaugh v. Bows- *604 laugh
  • Summerfield v. Superior Court, Maricopa Cty. 698 P.2d 712 Ariz. 1985
  • Summerfield v. Superior Court, Maricopa Cty. 698 P.2d 712 Ariz. 1985
    In concluding that common law principle and policy must play a role in the interpretation of this statute, , *474
  • State v. Salzman 679 P.2d 544 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • State v. Salzman 679 P.2d 544 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • Gibson v. Boyle 679 P.2d 535 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • Gibson v. Boyle 679 P.2d 535 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
    Lueck v. Superior Court, County of Cochise