Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite City of Phoenix v. Super. Ct., Maricopa Cty., 677 P.2d 1283.

110 citing documents.

Lucille v. Dodge 5 P.3d 925 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Lucille v. Dodge 5 P.3d 925 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
See Forino v. Arizona Dep’t of Transp., , (“To discern the legislature’s intent, we may consider the effect and consequences of alternative construction.”); , (cardinal rule of statutory interpretation is to ascertain legislative intent, and court should interpret statute so as to give it a fair and sensible meaning).
In Re Estate of Shumway 3 P.3d 977 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
In Re Estate of Shumway 3 P.3d 977 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Rodriguez v. Gavette 3 P.3d 977 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Rodriguez v. Gavette 3 P.3d 977 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Ford v. State 979 P.2d 10 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Ford v. State 979 P.2d 10 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
(holding that statute allowing county to recover costs from city for hospitalizing city inmate controlled over general statute providing that county was to bear such costs).
Mercy Healthcare Arizona, Inc. v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System 887 P.2d 625 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Mercy Healthcare Arizona, Inc. v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System 887 P.2d 625 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Wildwood Hills Mobile Home Park v. Arizona Department of Building & Fire Safety 885 P.2d 131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Wildwood Hills Mobile Home Park v. Arizona Department of Building & Fire Safety 885 P.2d 131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JA 33794
In Re Property, Business, & Building Located at 2120 S. 4th Avenue, Lot 16, Block 8 of Resubdivision … 870 P.2d 417 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
In Re Property, Business, & Building Located at 2120 S. 4th Avenue, Lot 16, Block 8 of Resubdivision … 870 P.2d 417 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Tartaglia v. Industrial Commission 862 P.2d 886 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Tartaglia v. Industrial Commission 862 P.2d 886 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Tucson Electric Power Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 851 P.2d 132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Tucson Electric Power Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 851 P.2d 132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Cochise County v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System 825 P.2d 968 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Cochise County v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System 825 P.2d 968 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. JA 33794 828 P.2d 1231 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. JA 33794 828 P.2d 1231 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Tracy v. Superior Court 810 P.2d 1030 Ariz. 1991
Carrow Co. v. Lusby 804 P.2d 747 Ariz. 1990
Carrow Co. v. Lusby 804 P.2d 747 Ariz. 1990
State v. Garza Rodriguez 791 P.2d 633 Ariz. 1990
State v. Garza Rodriguez 791 P.2d 633 Ariz. 1990
Mohave County v. City of Kingman 774 P.2d 806 Ariz. 1989
Mohave County v. City of Kingman 774 P.2d 806 Ariz. 1989
We granted the petition for review because of a
Mohave County v. City of Kingman 761 P.2d 1076 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Mohave County v. City of Kingman 761 P.2d 1076 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
It is apparent from the record and the arguments presented in the trial court that the trial judge’s ruling was to some extent based upon his conclusion that the Arizona Supreme Court’s , was controlling on several of the issues before him.
Southwestern Teamsters Security Fund v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 757 P.2d 1067 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Southwestern Teamsters Security Fund v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 757 P.2d 1067 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
St. Joseph's Hospital & Medical Center v. City of Phoenix 764 P.2d 25 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
St. Joseph's Hospital & Medical Center v. City of Phoenix 764 P.2d 25 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
the supreme court ruled that a city must bear the expense of providing medical care for its prisoners.
Roberts v. City of Mesa 760 P.2d 1091 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Roberts v. City of Mesa 760 P.2d 1091 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
677 * according the words and phrases their ordinary meaning unless it appears from the context that a different meaning is intended.
Physical Therapy Associates, Inc. v. Pinal County 743 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Physical Therapy Associates, Inc. v. Pinal County 743 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Miller v. City of Tucson 736 P.2d 1192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Miller v. City of Tucson 736 P.2d 1192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
We “will interpret [a] statute in such a way as to give it a fair and sensible meaning.” City of Phoenix v. Superior Court, County of Maricopa
Stuart v. Insurance Co. of North America 730 P.2d 255 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Stuart v. Insurance Co. of North America 730 P.2d 255 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Barmat v. John and Jane Doe Partners AD 747 P.2d 1214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Barmat v. John and Jane Doe Partners AD 747 P.2d 1214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. United Energy Corp. 725 P.2d 752 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. United Energy Corp. 725 P.2d 752 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Memorial Hospital 710 P.2d 1025 Ariz. 1985
American Savings Service Corp. v. Kosaka 718 P.2d 1001 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
American Savings Service Corp. v. Kosaka 718 P.2d 1001 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985