Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Ban v. Quigley, 812 P.2d 1014.

35 citing documents.

Bill W. Castillo v. Thania N. Lazo 386 P.3d 839 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Bill W. Castillo v. Thania N. Lazo 386 P.3d 839 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
-99, -17 (App. 1990), and R.A.J.
Kimberly McLaughlin v. Suzan McLaughlin 382 P.3d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Kimberly McLaughlin v. Suzan McLaughlin 382 P.3d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
see also Partanen v. Gallagher, ___ N.E.3d ___, ___, SJC-12018, 2016 WL 5721061, at *7 (Mass. Oct.
Choate v. Cochran Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Choate v. Cochran Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
§ 25-812(D) (2010).3 The Worcester court found that 2-200, -18 (1992), this court determined that a trial court could not order blood testing on the request of the putative father over the objection of the statutorily presumed father without conducting a “best interests” hearing.
Andrew R. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 224 P.3d 950 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Andrew R. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 224 P.3d 950 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
v. L.B.V., , (concluding that the term "out of wedlock” in a paternity statute limits when a guardian or best friend may bring a paternity action, but does not affect when a mother or father may initiate such a proceeding) (-99 , -17 (App.1990) (interpreting former A.R.S.
Premiere RV & Mini Storage LLC v. Maricopa County 215 P.3d 1121 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Premiere RV & Mini Storage LLC v. Maricopa County 215 P.3d 1121 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
“But when the language is ambiguous, we may also consider ‘the context and subject matter, the effects and consequences of the statute, and other acts that are in pari mate-ria.’ ” , ( , ).
Jones v. Weston 212 P.3d 835 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Jones v. Weston 212 P.3d 835 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Southwest Gas Corp. v. Industrial Commission 25 P.3d 1164 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Southwest Gas Corp. v. Industrial Commission 25 P.3d 1164 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
We thus “construe [statutory] provisions to harmonize rather than contradict one another.”
KZPZ Broadcasting, Inc. v. Black Canyon City Concerned Citizens 13 P.3d 772 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
KZPZ Broadcasting, Inc. v. Black Canyon City Concerned Citizens 13 P.3d 772 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
We agree that, in construing a statute, we must construe statutes regarding the same subject matter to “harmonize rather than contradict each other ‘if sound reasons and good conscience allow.’ ” , (quoting City of Mesa v. Salt River Project Agric.
Martin v. Reinstein 987 P.2d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Martin v. Reinstein 987 P.2d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Hall v. Lalli 977 P.2d 776 Ariz. 1999
Hall v. Lalli 977 P.2d 776 Ariz. 1999
Stephenson v. NASTRO IN AND FOR COUNTY OF MARICOPA 967 P.2d 616 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Stephenson v. NASTRO IN AND FOR COUNTY OF MARICOPA 967 P.2d 616 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Saenz v. STATE FUND WORKERS'S COMP. INS. 943 P.2d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Saenz v. STATE FUND WORKERS'S COMP. INS. 943 P.2d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
We will also "construe provisions of a statute to harmonize rather than contradict one another `if sound reasons and good conscience allow.'" , ( quoting City of Mesa v. Salt River Project Agric.
Antonsen v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR CTY OF MARICOPA 918 P.2d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Antonsen v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR CTY OF MARICOPA 918 P.2d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
See, , (mother sought relief from order that blood test be taken; court reasoned that “this case raises a matter of statewide importance and because we conclude that petitioners have no equally plain, speedy, or adequate remedy by direct appeal, we accept jurisdiction and grant relief’).
State v. Pinto 880 P.2d 1139 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Pinto 880 P.2d 1139 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
We also look at the effects and consequences of a particular interpretation and compare them to other acts that are in pari materia; we will then construe the provisions to harmonize rather than contradict one another “if sound reasons and good conscience allow.” , review dismissed
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Foust 869 P.2d 183 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Foust 869 P.2d 183 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Moreover, we will construe various provisions of the statutory scheme to harmonize rather than to contradict one another, , review dismissed, , (citations omitted), and will construe the words of the statute in conjunction with the context and subject matter of the entire act.
Kelly v. Cataldo 488 N.W.2d 822 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
R.A.J. v. L.B.V. 817 P.2d 37 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Raj v. Lbv 817 P.2d 37 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Raj v. Lbv 817 P.2d 37 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
the court considered this issue.
R.A.J. v. L.B.V. 817 P.2d 37 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
the court considered this issue.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by