Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Daou v. Harris, 678 P.2d 934.

311 citing documents.

De La Cruz v. State 961 P.2d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
De La Cruz v. State 961 P.2d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Because we presume the legislature knew of these statutes when it enacted the ADOSH statutes, , we conclude the legislature intended the Registrar of Contractors, not ADOSH, to license and regulate contracting.
Prudential v. Estate of Rojo-Pacheco 962 P.2d 213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Prudential v. Estate of Rojo-Pacheco 962 P.2d 213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
We presume that when the legislature enacts a statute, it is aware of existing statutes, , and “[w]here a later statute does not expressly repeal a former one, they should be construed so as to give effect to each, if possible.”
Encinas v. Pompa 939 P.2d 435 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Encinas v. Pompa 939 P.2d 435 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
(“The procedural law prescribes the method by which a substantive law is enforced or made effective.”).
Conant v. Whitney 947 P.2d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
(pretrial statement controls the subsequent course of litigation unless otherwise modified at trial to prevent manifest injustice).
Pompa v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR MARICOPA 931 P.2d 431 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Pompa v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR MARICOPA 931 P.2d 431 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
§§ 12-2101 and 12-120.21; , -11
Mohave County v. James R. Brathovde Family Trust 928 P.2d 1247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Mohave County v. James R. Brathovde Family Trust 928 P.2d 1247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
(The court will not infer that the legislature meant to divest the superior court of jurisdiction; the legislature must enunciate such an intent explicitly and clearly.)
Rosner v. Denim & Diamonds, Inc. 937 P.2d 353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Rosner v. Denim & Diamonds, Inc. 937 P.2d 353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Roddy, 184 Ariz. at 627 , 911 P.2d at 633
Roddy v. County of Maricopa 911 P.2d 631 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Roddy v. County of Maricopa 911 P.2d 631 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Jackson 908 P.2d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Jackson 908 P.2d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
See, , approved, , , (holding that a statutory rule requiring medical malpractice actions to be referred to a medical review panel could not operate to extend the time provided in the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure for answering a civil complaint).
JV-132324 v. Superior Court 890 P.2d 632 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
JV-132324 v. Superior Court 890 P.2d 632 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
-58 , -39 (1984); Arizona Podiatry Ass’n v. Director of Ins.
Wareing v. Falk 897 P.2d 1381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Wareing v. Falk 897 P.2d 1381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
In Re Shannon 876 P.2d 548 Ariz. 1994
In Re Shannon 876 P.2d 548 Ariz. 1994
Fletcher, 149 Ariz. at 191 , 717 P.2d at 870 (emphasis in original); , , 939 (1984); Black’s Law Dictionary 1083 (5th ed. 1979).
Ellman Land Corp. v. Maricopa County 884 P.2d 217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Ellman Land Corp. v. Maricopa County 884 P.2d 217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Hayes v. Continental Insurance 872 P.2d 668 Ariz. 1994
Hayes v. Continental Insurance 872 P.2d 668 Ariz. 1994
E.C. Garcia & Co. v. Arizona State Department of Revenue 875 P.2d 169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
E.C. Garcia & Co. v. Arizona State Department of Revenue 875 P.2d 169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Anderson v. Preferred Stock Food Markets, Inc. 854 P.2d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
We will not disturb an order granting a new trial, particularly one based on Rule 59(a)(8), “unless the probative force of the evidence clearly demonstrates that the decision of the trial judge is a manifest abuse of discretion.”
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
Estate of Bohn v. Waddell 848 P.2d 324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Estate of Bohn v. Waddell 848 P.2d 324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
(legislative divestiture of superior court jurisdiction must be clear and unambiguous)
State v. Brown 840 P.2d 280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
State v. Brown 840 P.2d 280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Citing the presumption favoring superior court jurisdiction and the general rule that a statute will not be construed to divest the court of jurisdiction unless it is clear and unambiguous, , the state argues that § 22-201(B) is not sufficiently clear because it does not specifically reference forfeiture actions.
State Ex Rel. Miller v. Beardsley Industrial Property 839 P.2d 439 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State Ex Rel. Miller v. Beardsley Industrial Property 839 P.2d 439 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
General Electric Capital Corp. v. Osterkamp 836 P.2d 398 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
General Electric Capital Corp. v. Osterkamp 836 P.2d 404 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
General Electric Capital Corp. v. Osterkamp 836 P.2d 398 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Richas v. Superior Court, supra.
General Electric Capital Corp. v. Osterkamp 836 P.2d 404 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
United Imports and Exports
State v. Buonafede 814 P.2d 1381 Ariz. 1991
State v. Buonafede 814 P.2d 1381 Ariz. 1991
(substantive law creates and defines rights; procedural law prescribes method by which substantive law is enforced).
Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Dini 821 P.2d 216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
McIntyre Refrigeration, Inc. v. Mepco Electra 799 P.2d 901 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
McIntyre Refrigeration, Inc. v. Mepco Electra 799 P.2d 901 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
(legislature is presumed to be aware of the law when it enacts a statute).
State v. Garza Rodriguez 791 P.2d 633 Ariz. 1990
M & M Auto Storage Pool, Inc. v. Chemical Waste Management, Inc. 791 P.2d 665 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
M & M Auto Storage Pool, Inc. v. Chemical Waste Management, Inc. 791 P.2d 665 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990