Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Vega v. Sullivan, 19 P.3d 645.

73 citing documents.

Edward P. Bolding v. State of Arizona 148 P.3d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Because the rule is ambiguous, we consider other factors, namely, the rule’s “‘context, subject matter, effects, consequences, 4 spirit, and purpose.’” Bergeron ex rel Perez v. O’Neil
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
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Gordon 144 P.3d 513 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Gordon 144 P.3d 513 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Maher v. Urman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Maher v. Urman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
(we review de novo questions involving interpretation and application of court rules).
Ziemak v. Schnakenberg 111 P.3d 1042 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Ziemak v. Schnakenberg 111 P.3d 1042 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
(purpose of arbitration provision is to “‘discourage appeals of reasonable arbitration awards’ ”), quoting Farmers Ins.
Medders v. Conlogue 90 P.3d 1241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Medders v. Conlogue 90 P.3d 1241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
is inconclusive or ambiguous, we then consider other factors such as [its] context, subject matter, effects, consequences, spirit, and purpose.’” Id.
ChartOne, Inc. v. Bernini 83 P.3d 1103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Chartone, Inc. v. Mercaldo, Ltd. Webb, Pc. Durazzo & Eckel Smart Professional Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
ChartOne, Inc. v. Bernini 83 P.3d 1103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
our supreme court in promulgating [the rule].”
Chartone, Inc. v. Mercaldo, Ltd. Webb, Pc. Durazzo & Eckel Smart Professional Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
our supreme court in promulgating [the rule].”
Bergeron Ex Rel. Perez v. O'NEIL 74 P.3d 952 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Bergeron Ex Rel. Perez v. O'NEIL 74 P.3d 952 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
our supreme court in promulgating [the rule].”
Cranmer v. State 63 P.3d 1036 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Cranmer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Cranmer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Cranmer v. State 63 P.3d 1036 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
our supreme court in promulgating [rules of court].”
Moedt v. General Motors Corp. 60 P.3d 240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Moedt v. General Motors Corp. 60 P.3d 240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
The statutory language is the best indication of the legislature’s intent, though, , 507 ¶ 9, and we give that language its usual meaning unless impossible or absurd consequences would result.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by