Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Grant v. BD. OF REGENTS, ETC., 652 P.2d 1374.

35 citing documents.

State v. Watson 459 P.3d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Watson 459 P.3d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State of Arizona v. Samkeita Jahveh Jurden 373 P.3d 543 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Samkeita Jahveh Jurden 373 P.3d 543 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona Ex Rel. Montgomery v. Hrach Shilgevorkyan 322 P.3d 160 Ariz. 2014
State of Arizona Ex Rel. Montgomery v. Hrach Shilgevorkyan 322 P.3d 160 Ariz. 2014
and State Colls, of Ariz., , and although statutory title headings are not part of the law, they can aid in its interpretation
Pivotal Colorado II, LLC v. Arizona Public Safety Personnel Retirement System 322 P.3d 186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
of Regents, (“‘state money’ is money in the state treasury credited to a particular fund therein”).
Backus v. State 203 P.3d 499 Ariz. 2009
London v. Broderick 63 P.3d 303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
London v. Broderick 63 P.3d 303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
& State Colls., , (discussing rules of statutory construction); ¶ 21 , (court employs tools of statutory construction to interpret court rules).
Strojnik v. General Insurance Co. of America 36 P.3d 1200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Strojnik v. General Insurance Co. of America 36 P.3d 1200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
City of Casa Grande v. Arizona Water Co. 20 P.3d 590 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
at 334 , 955 P.2d at 972
Kotterman v. Killian 972 P.2d 606 Ariz. 1999
A decade earlier we identified “state money” as “money in the state treasury credited to a particular fund therein.” , 529, , 1376 (1982).
De La Cruz v. State 961 P.2d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
529, , 1376 (1982) (“Statutory construction requires that the provisions of a statute be read and construed in context with the related provisions and in light of its place in the statutory scheme.”).
Prudential v. Estate of Rojo-Pacheco 962 P.2d 213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Goulder v. ARIZONA DEPT. OF TRANSP., MOTOR VEH. 868 P.2d 997 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Finck v. Superior Court 868 P.2d 1000 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Goulder v. Arizona Department of Transportation 868 P.2d 997 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Foust 869 P.2d 183 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Foust 869 P.2d 183 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
of Regents of Universities and State Colleges of Arizona, , Golder v. Dep’t of Rev., State Bd.
McClead v. Pima County 849 P.2d 1378 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
of Regents, , 529, , 1376 (1982).
In re 1986 Chevrolet Corvette 831 P.2d 871 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
In re 1986 Chevrolet Corvette 831 P.2d 871 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Rotter v. Coconino County 805 P.2d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
529, , 1376 (1982); , , Stuart v. Ins.
Eardley v. Greenberg 792 P.2d 724 Ariz. 1990
The provisions of a statute should be read in the light of related sections and its “place in the statutory scheme.” , 529, , 1376 (1982).
Hughes v. Creighton 798 P.2d 403 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Rowe International, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 796 P.2d 924 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Lueck v. UNITED DAIRYMEN OF ARIZONA 782 P.2d 708 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Lueck v. UNITED DAIRYMEN OF ARIZONA 782 P.2d 708 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Wilhite 772 P.2d 582 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
James v. Phoenix General Hospital, Inc. 744 P.2d 695 Ariz. 1987
State Compensation Fund v. Nelson 737 P.2d 1088 Ariz. 1987
City of Phoenix v. SUPER. COURT, MARICOPA CTY. 696 P.2d 724 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Skyview Cooling Co. v. Indus. Com'n of Ariz. 691 P.2d 320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by