Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Kriz v. Buckeye Petroleum Co., Inc., 701 P.2d 1182.

76 citing documents.

Grunwald v. Scottsdale Healthcare Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Grunwald v. Scottsdale Healthcare Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
void, inert, redundant, or trivial,” or 9 GRUNWALD, et al. v. SCOTTSDALE HEALTHCARE, et al. Opinion of the Court causing “an absurd result”) (citations omitted); (directing courts to read the statute “as a whole, looking to its subject matter, effects and consequences, reason, and spirit”) (citation omitted).
Hiskett v. Hon. lambert/state 451 P.3d 408 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Hiskett v. Hon. lambert/state 451 P.3d 408 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
ades/taylor v. Pandola 382 P.3d 101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Glava v. Jpmorgan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Glava v. Jpmorgan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
See ARCAP 28(c) (2014); n.3, n.3 (1985) (determining ARCAP 28(c) prohibits citation to unpublished federal court decisions); Walden Books Co. v. Dep’t of Revenue, ¶ 23, (holding ARCAP 28(c) prohibits citation to out-of-state memorandum decisions); see also Ariz. R. Sup
State v. Reyes 307 P.3d 35 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Reyes 307 P.3d 35 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Kriz v. Buckeye Petroleum Co., Inc.
CNL Hotels & Resorts, Inc. v. Maricopa County 244 P.3d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
CNL Hotels & Resorts, Inc. v. Maricopa County 244 P.3d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
v. Maricopa County, , , (adopting the only interpretation that would give meaning to two different statutory provisions).
AZTAR CORP. v. US Fire Ins. Co. 224 P.3d 960 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
AZTAR CORP. v. US Fire Ins. Co. 224 P.3d 960 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
See ARCAP 28(c); Kriz v. Buckeye Petroleum Co., Inc., , 377 n. 3, , 1185 n. 3 (1985) (Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure ("ARCAP") 28(c) prohibits citation to unpublished federal as well as state court decisions).
Holland v. Hurley 212 P.3d 890 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Holland v. Hurley 212 P.3d 890 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Co., , 377 n. 3, , 1185 n. 3 (1985) (ARCAP 28(c) prohibits citation to unpublished federal as well as state court decisions)
In re MH 2008-000438 205 P.3d 1124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 205 P.3d 1124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
In re MH 2008-000438 205 P.3d 1124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Under rules of statutory interpretation, we read a statute as a whole and “give meaningful operation to all of its provisions.” , ( , ).
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 205 P.3d 1124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Action Marine, Inc. 181 P.3d 188 Ariz. 2008
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Action Marine, Inc. 181 P.3d 188 Ariz. 2008
and avoid interpretations that render statutory provisions meaningless, unnecessary, or duplicative, see
Gamez v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 141 P.3d 794 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Martinez v. Green 131 P.3d 492 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Martinez v. Green 131 P.3d 492 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Kriz v. Buckeye Petroleum Co., Inc.
Gary Filer v. Tohono O'Odham Nation Gaming Enterprise Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Gary Filer v. Tohono O'Odham Nation Gaming Enterprise Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Additionally, a plaintiff who files a dram shop action pursuant to § 4-311 is statutorily required to “file a copy of the complaint with the department [of liquor licenses and control] Revenue, n.3, n.3 (1985).
Riepe v. Riepe 91 P.3d 312 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Akins 75 P.3d 718 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Akins 75 P.3d 718 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
a strong presumption of constitutionality exists, , ( , ), and a statute must be interpreted “as a whole” with each of its provisions “given meaningful operation.” , ( , ).
Scheehle v. Justices of the Supreme Court 57 P.3d 379 Ariz. 2002
Scheehle v. Justices of the Supreme Court 57 P.3d 379 Ariz. 2002
Ariz. Dep’t ¶ 9 , ¶ 6 , (when statutory language is clear, “it is determinative” of construction); ¶ 7 , (best indication of a statute’s meaning is its language); , (statute’s words are foremost guide to interpretation).
Sherman v. City of Tempe 24 P.3d 1285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Sherman v. City of Tempe 24 P.3d 1285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Wyatt, 167 Ariz. at 284 , 806 P.2d at 873 ( , ).
Walden Books Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 12 P.3d 809 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Walden Books Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 12 P.3d 809 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
¶ 22 , 377 n. 3, , 1185 n. 3 (1985), the supreme court declined to consider a memorandum decision of the District Court of the District of Arizona.
San Carlos Apache Tribe v. Superior Court 972 P.2d 179 Ariz. 1999
San Carlos Apache Tribe v. Superior Court 972 P.2d 179 Ariz. 1999
1588, 1594 , 128 L.Ed.2d 302 (1994) (“It is not unusual for legislation to contain diverse purposes that must be reconciled, and the most rehable guide for that task is the enacted text.”); , (“To arrive at legislative intent, this Court first looks to the words of the statute”).
State v. Schackart 947 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1997
State v. Schackart 947 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1997
377 n. 3, , 1185 n. 3 (1985) (holding judicial notice of federal court memorandum decision improper under Rule 201, Ariz. R.Evid.); In re Estate of Henry, 6 Ariz.App.
Collins v. Miller & Miller, Ltd. 943 P.2d 747 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Collins v. Miller & Miller, Ltd. 943 P.2d 747 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
377 n. 3, , 1185 n. 3 (1985).
State v. Zaman (Tahirkhaili) 927 P.2d 347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Zaman (Tahirkhaili) 927 P.2d 347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
While this order does not qualify as precedential authority, see Rule 28(c), Ariz.R.Civ.App.P.; , 377 n. 3, , 1185 n. 3 (1985) (memorandum decisions from other courts may not be cited), it does support our determination regarding jurisdiction in this matter.
Mail Boxes v. Industrial Commission 888 P.2d 777 Ariz. 1995
Mail Boxes v. Industrial Commission 888 P.2d 777 Ariz. 1995
Calmat of Arizona v. State Ex Rel. Miller 859 P.2d 1323 Ariz. 1993
Calmat of Arizona v. State Ex Rel. Miller 859 P.2d 1323 Ariz. 1993
State v. Bews 868 P.2d 347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
State v. Bews 868 P.2d 347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Guertin v. Dixon 864 P.2d 1072 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993