Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Pima County v. Heinfeld, 654 P.2d 281.

107 citing documents.

State v. Tarango 895 P.2d 1009 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Reinesto v. Superior Court 894 P.2d 733 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Reinesto v. Superior Court 894 P.2d 733 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
See Vo, 172 Ariz. at 201, 836 P.2d at 414
Canon Sch. Dist. v. WES CONSTR. CO. IV 882 P.2d 1274 Ariz. 1994
Canon School District No. 50 v. W.E.S. Construction Co. 882 P.2d 1274 Ariz. 1994
Canon School District No. 50 v. W.E.S. Construction Co. 882 P.2d 1274 Ariz. 1994
(“[Wjhere two statutes deal with the same subject, the more specific statute controls.”).
Canon Sch. Dist. v. WES CONSTR. CO. IV 882 P.2d 1274 Ariz. 1994
("[W]here two statutes deal with the same subject, the more specific statute controls.").
Midland Risk Management Co. v. Watford 876 P.2d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Midland Risk Management Co. v. Watford 876 P.2d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Goulder v. ARIZONA DEPT. OF TRANSP., MOTOR VEH. 868 P.2d 997 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Goulder v. ARIZONA DEPT. OF TRANSP., MOTOR VEH. 868 P.2d 997 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Co., , 74, , 765 (App. 1991) ( , ).
Blazek v. Superior Court 869 P.2d 509 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Blazek v. Superior Court 869 P.2d 509 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
These specific exceptions to the privilege imply that the legislature did not intend other exceptions, such as for periods of separation or for “irretrievably broken marriages.” , (expression of specific exceptions to confidentiality requirement of Open Meeting Law for some persons implies an intent not to except other persons).
Estate of Hernandez v. Bd. of Regents 866 P.2d 1330 Ariz. 1994
Estate of Hernandez v. Bd. of Regents 866 P.2d 1330 Ariz. 1994
Wells Fargo Credit Corp. v. Arizona Property & Cas.
Piper v. Bear Medical Systems, Inc. 883 P.2d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Piper v. Bear Medical Systems, Inc. 883 P.2d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
In a statute, “the expression of one or more items of a class indicates an intent to exclude all items of the same class which are not expressed.”
Goulder v. Arizona Department of Transportation 868 P.2d 997 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Goulder v. Arizona Department of Transportation 868 P.2d 997 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Drexel Heights Fire District v. City of Tucson 858 P.2d 321 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Drexel Heights Fire District v. City of Tucson 858 P.2d 321 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Vo v. Superior Court 836 P.2d 408 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Vo v. Superior Court 836 P.2d 408 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
(specific inclusion in one class may indicate exclusion from other classes where not mentioned).
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
Jachimek v. Superior Court 819 P.2d 487 Ariz. 1991
Jachimek v. Superior Court 819 P.2d 487 Ariz. 1991
(“A well established rule of statutory construction provides that the expression of one or more items of a class indicates an intent to exclude all items of the same class which are not expressed.”) (citations omitted).
Security Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Milton 828 P.2d 1216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Security Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Milton 828 P.2d 1216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Maricopa County v. Barkley 812 P.2d 1052 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Maricopa County v. Barkley 812 P.2d 1052 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Wagstaff 794 P.2d 118 Ariz. 1990
Thomas v. Goudreault 786 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Thomas v. Goudreault 786 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Behl 774 P.2d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Behl 774 P.2d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
the Arizona Supreme Court stated: Another well established rule of statutory construction dictates that where two statutes deal with the same subject, the more specific statute controls.
U.S. Parking Systems v. City of Phoenix 772 P.2d 33 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
U.S. Parking Systems v. City of Phoenix 772 P.2d 33 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Baker v. Gardner 770 P.2d 766 Ariz. 1989
Baker v. Gardner 770 P.2d 766 Ariz. 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
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
Eardley v. Greenberg 774 P.2d 822 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Eardley v. Greenberg 774 P.2d 822 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Employers Mutual Casualty Co. v. McKeon 765 P.2d 513 Ariz. 1988
Employers Mutual Casualty Co. v. McKeon 765 P.2d 513 Ariz. 1988
State v. Ault 759 P.2d 1320 Ariz. 1988
State v. Ault 759 P.2d 1320 Ariz. 1988
Roller Village, Inc. v. Superior Court 741 P.2d 328 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987