Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Pinal Vista Properties, L.L.C. v. Turnbull, 91 P.3d 1031.

75 citing documents.

Gaveck v. Arizona State Board of Podiatry Examiners 215 P.3d 1114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Gaveck v. Arizona State Board of Podiatry Examiners 215 P.3d 1114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
See generally Pinal Vista Props., -90, ¶ 6 , -33 (App.2004); Havasu Heights Ranch & Dev.
State v. Larson 214 P.3d 429 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Larson 214 P.3d 429 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
We give meaning to each word and phrase in a statute “so that no part is rendered void, superfluous, contradictory or insignificant.” Pinal Vista Props., ¶ 10 , ¶ 9 , (“We must interpret the statute so that no provision is rendered meaningless, insignificant, or void.”).
COUNTY OF COCHISE v. SEBASTIAO FARIA and MARIA FARI Dba FARIA DAIRY Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
COUNTY OF COCHISE v. SEBASTIAO FARIA and MARIA FARI Dba FARIA DAIRY Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
“[E]ach word or phrase of a statute must be given meaning so that no part is rendered void, superfluous, contradictory or insignificant.” Pinal Vista Props.
Sharpe v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System 207 P.3d 741 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Sharpe v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System 207 P.3d 741 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Pinal Vista Props., ¶ 10 , (“[E]ach word or phrase of a statute must be given meaning so that no part is rendered void, superfluous, contradictory or insignificant.”).
State v. Botkin 200 P.3d 323 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Botkin 200 P.3d 323 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
“[E]ach word or phrase of a statute must be given meaning so that no part is rendered void, superfluous, contradictory or insignificant.” Pinal Vista Props., ¶ 10 , (citation omitted).
RACKMASTER SYSTEMS, INC. v. Maderia 193 P.3d 314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
RACKMASTER SYSTEMS, INC. v. Maderia 193 P.3d 314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Obregon v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 177 P.3d 873 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Obregon v. Industrial Commission of Arizona 177 P.3d 873 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Barraza 170 P.3d 293 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Ditsworth 166 P.3d 130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Ditsworth 166 P.3d 130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Pinal Vista Properties, ¶ 10 , (internal quotations and citations omitted).
Lee v. State 161 P.3d 583 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Lee v. State 161 P.3d 583 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
§ 12-821.01(A) (filing of notice of claim must occur “within one hundred eighty days after the cause of action accrues”); see Pinal Vista Prop., ¶ 10 , (every word or phrase of a statute must be given meaning so that *545 no part is rendered void, superfluous, contradictory or insignificant).
Volunteer Center of So. Az. v. Staples, Ford, Pima Co. 147 P.3d 1052 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Volunteer Center of So. Az. v. Staples, Ford, Pima Co. 147 P.3d 1052 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
See Pinal Vista Props., -33 (App. 2004).
Ulan v. Pima County Board of Supervisors 145 P.3d 650 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Ulan v. Pima County Board of Supervisors 145 P.3d 650 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Estate of Winn v. Plaza Healthcare, Inc. 128 P.3d 234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Estate of Winn v. Plaza Healthcare, Inc. 128 P.3d 234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
v. Turnbull, ¶ 10 , (“[E]aeh word or phrase of a statute must be given meaning so that no part is rendered void, superfluous, contradictory or insignificant.”).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by