Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Herman v. City of Tucson, 4 P.3d 973.

47 citing documents.

Mba v. Scottsdale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Mba v. Scottsdale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
so that no part of the [ordinance] will be void, inert, redundant, or trivial.’” ¶14 13 MBA v. SCOTTSDALE, et al. Williams, J., dissenting (App. 1999) ().
Haley W., Gary W. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Haley W., Gary W. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 6 (App. 2016) ( ¶ 5 (App. 1999)).
Melissa T. v. Dcs, P.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Melissa T. v. Dcs, P.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 6 (App. 2016) ( ¶ 5 (App. 1999)).
Normandin v. Encanto 425 P.3d 243 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Normandin v. Encanto 425 P.3d 243 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶8 Because we “decide cases on nonconstitutional grounds if possible,” ¶ 10 (App. 1998), we will first address Normandin’s statutory arguments, ¶ 7 (App. 1999).
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
so that no part of the statute will be void, inert, redundant, or trivial.’ ” ¶ 14 , (citation omitted).
Biggs v. Betlach 392 P.3d 499 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Biggs v. Betlach 392 P.3d 499 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
See Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Dep’t of Corrections, ¶ 14 (App. 1999) (“[W]e must avoid interpreting a statute so as to render any of its language mere surplusage .
Jeff D. v. Department of Child Safety 367 P.3d 109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Jeff D. v. Department of Child Safety 367 P.3d 109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
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
¶ 14 , (“[W]e must avoid interpreting a statute so as to render any of its language mere ‘surplusage,’ but rather, must give meaning to ‘each word, phrase, clause, and sentence ...
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
Phoenix City Prosecutor's Office v. Ybarra 160 P.3d 695 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Phoenix City Prosecutor's Office v. Ybarra 160 P.3d 695 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
(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); ¶ 14 , ( , ) (noting court avoids interpreting statute “so as to render any of its language mere ‘surplusage,’ [and instead] give meaning to ‘each word, phrase, clause, and sentence ...
Mago v. Mercedes-Benz, U.S.A., Inc. 142 P.3d 712 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Mago v. Mercedes-Benz, U.S.A., Inc. 142 P.3d 712 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
¶ 14 , ( , ) (noting court avoids interpreting statute “so as to render any of its language mere ‘surplusage,’ [and instead] give meaning to ‘each word, phrase, clause, and sentence ...
Andresano v. Pima County, Pima County Dept. of Public Works Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Andresano v. Pima County, Pima County Dept. of Public Works Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
See, P.3d 359 (App. 2003); P.3d 973 (App. 1999); P.2d 47 (App. 1996).
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
And, when interpreting a statute, “‘we must read the statute as a whole and give meaningful operation to each of its provisions.’ ”
Arizona State Democratic Party v. State 98 P.3d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State of Arizona v. Rene A. Sanchez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State of Arizona v. Rene A. Sanchez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Riepe v. Riepe 91 P.3d 312 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Riepe v. Riepe 91 P.3d 312 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
¶ 14 , (citation omitted) (noting courts avoid interpreting statute “so as to render any of its language mere ‘surplusage,’ [and instead] give meaning to ‘each word, phrase, clause, and sentence ...
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Rayes 75 P.3d 148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Rayes 75 P.3d 148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
See, ¶ 5 , (issues of statutory interpretation and constitutionality are reviewed de novo).
Armenta v. City of Casa Grande 71 P.3d 359 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Armenta v. City of Casa Grande 71 P.3d 359 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Long v. Napolitano 53 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Long v. Napolitano 53 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
¶ 14 , (holding court should avoid interpreting statute to render any language surplusage).
State v. Wilson 26 P.3d 1161 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Followed State v. Wilson 26 P.3d 1161 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Citadel Care Center v. Arizona Department of Revenue 25 P.3d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Citadel Care Center v. Arizona Department of Revenue 25 P.3d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
¶ 14 , (We interpret statutory language to avoid redundancy.).
Hause v. City of Tucson 19 P.3d 640 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Hause v. City of Tucson 19 P.3d 640 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
“Neither party presents any factual dispute, and we review this legal issue de novo .” , (issues of statutory interpretation reviewed de novo).
Johnson v. Davis 12 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Johnson v. Davis 12 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
so that no part of the statute will be void, inert, redundant, or trivial.’” ¶ 14 , ( , ).
City of Tucson v. Consumers for Retail Choice 5 P.2d 934 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
City of Tucson v. Consumers for Retail Choice 5 P.2d 934 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by