Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite U.S. Parking Systems v. City of Phoenix, 772 P.2d 33.

70 citing documents.

Bsi v. Adot Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Bsi v. Adot Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
v. City of Phoenix, -12 (App. 1989); A.R.S.
Mba v. Scottsdale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Mba v. Scottsdale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
v. City of Phoenix, (indicating we need not defer to a board of adjustment’s interpretation when “there is no showing of a long-standing interpretation by the agency”).
State v. Jones 424 P.3d 447 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Jones 424 P.3d 447 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
v. City of Phx., and Cty.
Cleckner v. Adhs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Cleckner v. Adhs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Bsi v. Adot 399 P.3d 696 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Bsi v. Adot 399 P.3d 696 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Di Giacinto v. Arizona State Retirement System 395 P.3d 292 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Di Giacinto v. Arizona State Retirement System 395 P.3d 292 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
White Mountain Health Center, Inc. v. Maricopa County 386 P.3d 416 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
White Mountain Health Center, Inc. v. Maricopa County 386 P.3d 416 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
v. City of Phoenix, , (“An unambiguous statute should be interpreted to mean what it plainly states unless an absurdity results.”); ¶ 9 , (“We look first to the plain language of the statute because that is the best indicator of legislat
Shudak v. Azcc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Shudak v. Azcc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“However, the agency’s interpretation is not infallible, and courts must remain the final authority on critical questions of statutory construction.” cf. Marco Crane & Rigging v. Arizona Corp. Comm’n, (judicial deference to ACC interpretation of rate schedules appropriate “where the decision is based upon reasonable interpretation”); ¶ 30 (2004) (“‘
Founding Fathers v. Asbcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Founding Fathers v. Asbcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
v. City of Phoenix, (“Judicial deference should be given to agencies charged with the responsibility of carrying out specific legislation.”).
Levine v. phoenix/suns Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Levine v. phoenix/suns Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Stambaugh v. Butler 379 P.3d 250 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Stambaugh v. Butler 379 P.3d 250 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Beatie v. Beatie 333 P.3d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Beatie v. Beatie 333 P.3d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Vong v. Aune 328 P.3d 1057 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Vong v. Aune 328 P.3d 1057 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Baggett 306 P.3d 81 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Baggett 306 P.3d 81 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
v. City of Phoenix, , (citation omitted) (when a term is used in one provision of a statute and omitted from another, that term should not be read into the section where it is omitted).
Melendez v. Hallmark Insurance 305 P.3d 392 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Melendez v. Hallmark Insurance 305 P.3d 392 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Robbins v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 300 P.3d 556 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Robbins v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 300 P.3d 556 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Stagecoach Trails MHC, L.L.C. v. City of Benson 295 P.3d 943 Ariz. 2013
Stagecoach Trails MHC, L.L.C. v. City of Benson 295 P.3d 943 Ariz. 2013
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Mathis 290 P.3d 1226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Mathis 290 P.3d 1226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
v. City of Phoenix, , Bearing v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ.
Stagecoach Trails MHC, L.L.C. v. City of Benson 278 P.3d 314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Stagecoach Trails MHC, L.L.C. v. City of Benson 278 P.3d 314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Scenic Arizona v. City of Phoenix Board of Adjustment 268 P.3d 370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Scenic Arizona v. City of Phoenix Board of Adjustment 268 P.3d 370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
v. City of Phoenix, , (citation omitted).
Canyon Del Rio Investors, L.L.C. v. City of Flagstaff 258 P.3d 154 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Canyon Del Rio Investors, L.L.C. v. City of Flagstaff 258 P.3d 154 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
v. City of Phoenix, , (requiring that an unambiguous statute be interpreted to mean what it plainly says unless an absurdity results).
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
v. City of Phoenix, , Capitol Castings, Inc. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
Jones v. Paniagua 212 P.3d 133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Jones v. Paniagua 212 P.3d 133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
v. City of Phoenix, , (“Where a term is used in one provision of a statute and omitted from another, that term should not be read into the section where it is omitted.”).
Hart v. Hart 204 P.3d 441 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Hart v. Hart 204 P.3d 441 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
v. City of Phoenix, , (reciting the same rule).
In Re the Estate of ELLIOT GOLDMAN 158 P.3d 892 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
In Re the Estate of ELLIOT GOLDMAN 158 P.3d 892 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
v. City of Phoenix, -12, -35 (App. 1989) (“[W]e can nevertheless refer to titles and captions for indications of legislative intent.”).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by