Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Pickrell, 667 P.2d 1304.

148 citing documents.

CENTER FOR AZ v. AZ SECRETARY OF STATE Ariz. 2026
(stating that motions to dismiss for failing to state a claim are disfavored and should only be granted if “it appears certain” that the plaintiff would not be entitled to relief if it proves the pleaded facts).
Brenden Kapusta v. Dr. Bryce Bennett, Oasis Psychological Services, Bianca Boling Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2026
Brenden Kapusta v. Dr. Bryce Bennett, Oasis Psychological Services, Bianca Boling Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2026
Stephens v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Stephens v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Markham v. Cahava Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Markham v. Cahava Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Williams v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Williams v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
(quoting Sun World Corp. v. Pennysaver, Inc., (citation omitted)).
Angulo-Murrieta v. Yuma Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Angulo-Murrieta v. Yuma Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
performed for financial gain, [that is] one of the illegal acts enumerated in statute, and [is] chargeable and punishable in accordance with the requirements of the statute.” –97 (1983).
State v. Ceasar 383 P.3d 1140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Ceasar 383 P.3d 1140 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
n.2 , (“In Arizona, the only crimes punishable by imprisonment for more than one year are felonies and class 1 second offense misdemeanors.”).
Murray v. Farmers Insurance Company of Arizona .... 366 P.3d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Murray v. Farmers Insurance Company of Arizona .... 366 P.3d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Shorey v. Arizona Corp. Commission 359 P.3d 997 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Shorey v. Arizona Corp. Commission 359 P.3d 997 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
and Ariz. State Real Estate Dep’t v. Am.
Hannosh v. Segal 328 P.3d 1049 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Hannosh v. Segal 328 P.3d 1049 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
superseded on other grounds by A.R.S.
State of Arizona v. Anthony Connue Serrano 323 P.3d 774 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Anthony Connue Serrano 323 P.3d 774 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
(recognizing language of statute as clearest indicator of legislative intent).
State of Arizona v. Brady Whitman Jr. 301 P.3d 226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Belen Loan Investors, LLC v. Myers, Baumgardner, Los Luna Highlands 296 P.3d 984 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Belen Loan Investors, LLC v. Myers, Baumgardner, Los Luna Highlands 296 P.3d 984 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
596-97, 1311-12 (1983) (complaint survives Rule 12(b)(6) motion when it alleges elements of claim); Standard Chartered PLC, 190 Ariz. at 31-32, 945 P.2d at 342-43 (setting out elements of negligent misrepresentation).
Coleman v. City of Mesa 265 P.3d 422 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Coleman v. City of Mesa 265 P.3d 422 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State Ex Rel. Horne v. Autozone, Inc. 258 P.3d 289 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State Ex Rel. Horne v. Autozone, Inc. 258 P.3d 289 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
and the CFA’s cause of action for consumer fraud is considerably different from a common-law fraud claim.
Cullen v. Koty-Leavitt Insurance Agency, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Cullen v. Koty-Leavitt Insurance Agency, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Rowland v. Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., Universal Mktg.
Yarbrough v. Montoya-Paez 147 P.3d 755 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Yarbrough v. Montoya-Paez 147 P.3d 755 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
(“[S]tatutory language which is clear and unambiguous requires no judicial interpretation.”).
David Garcia v. State of Arizona 146 P.3d 1007 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
David Garcia v. State of Arizona 146 P.3d 1007 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
O'CONNOR v. Hyatt 87 P.3d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
O'CONNOR v. Hyatt 87 P.3d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
(“[I]t is a basic tenet of statutory construction that where the statutory language is unambiguous, that language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive, absent a clearly expressed legislative intent to the contrary.”).
State Ex Rel. Napolitano v. Gravano 60 P.3d 246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State Ex Rel. Napolitano v. Gravano 60 P.3d 246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
the Arizona Supreme Court rejected the argument that the Arizona attorney general was without authority to redress racketeering wrongs committed against non-residents of Arizona.
Logan v. Forever Living Products International, Inc. 52 P.3d 760 Ariz. 2002
Logan v. Forever Living Products International, Inc. 52 P.3d 760 Ariz. 2002
State v. Estrada 34 P.3d 356 Ariz. 2001
State v. Estrada 34 P.3d 356 Ariz. 2001
v. Industrial Comm’n, , (“Where language is unambiguous, it is normally conclusive, absent a clearly expressed legislative intent to the contrary.”); , (“[I]t is a basic ‘tenet of statutory construction that where the statutory language is unambiguous, that language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive, absent a clearly expressed legislative intent to the contrary.”).
True v. Stewart 18 P.3d 707 Ariz. 2001
Lifeflite Medical Air Transport, Inc. v. Native American Air Services, Inc. 7 P.3d 158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Lifeflite Medical Air Transport, Inc. v. Native American Air Services, Inc. 7 P.3d 158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
in which the Arizona Supreme Court explained that there were “significant differences” in the federal and Arizona racketeering statutes and that the federal statute was “more restrictive in scope.” In that case, the court refused to adopt the restrictive federal interpretation of “ra
Hospital Corp. of Northwest, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Health Services 988 P.2d 168 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Hospital Corp. of Northwest, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Health Services 988 P.2d 168 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Luchanski v. Officer J.L. Congrove 971 P.2d 636 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Luchanski v. Officer J.L. Congrove 971 P.2d 636 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Great American Mortgage, Inc. v. Statewide Insurance 938 P.2d 1124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997