Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Powers v. Isley, 183 P.2d 880.

48 citing documents.

Huber v. Arizona Naturopathic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Huber v. Arizona Naturopathic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
(“[A] statute should be so construed as to render it a consistent and harmonious whole.”).
Clark v. Campbell 193 P.3d 320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Clark v. Campbell 193 P.3d 320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
of Supervisors of Maricopa County, , , Reinhold v. Bd.
Unum Life Insurance Co. of America v. Craig 26 P.3d 510 Ariz. 2001
Unum Life Insurance Co. of America v. Craig 26 P.3d 510 Ariz. 2001
True v. Stewart 18 P.3d 707 Ariz. 2001
True v. Stewart 18 P.3d 707 Ariz. 2001
McDonald v. Campbell 821 P.2d 139 Ariz. 1991
City of Prescott v. Town of Chino Valley 803 P.2d 891 Ariz. 1990
City of Prescott v. Town of Chino Valley 803 P.2d 891 Ariz. 1990
Trustees, , ( , , ); see Gortarez v. Smitty’s Super Valu, Inc.
State v. Wagstaff 794 P.2d 118 Ariz. 1990
State v. Wagstaff 794 P.2d 118 Ariz. 1990
Maricopa County v. Dann 758 P.2d 1298 Ariz. 1988
Maricopa County v. Dann 758 P.2d 1298 Ariz. 1988
Broomfield v. Maricopa County, supra
Reinhold v. Board of Supervisors 677 P.2d 1335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Reinhold v. BD. OF SUP'RS OF NAVAJO CTY. 677 P.2d 1335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Reinhold v. BD. OF SUP'RS OF NAVAJO CTY. 677 P.2d 1335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Reinhold v. Board of Supervisors 677 P.2d 1335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
State v. Pena 683 P.2d 744 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Pena 683 P.2d 744 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Karol v. Board of Education Trustees 593 P.2d 649 Ariz. 1979
Karol v. Board of Education Trustees 593 P.2d 649 Ariz. 1979
Deddens v. Cochise County 546 P.2d 811 Ariz. 1976
Deddens v. Cochise County 546 P.2d 811 Ariz. 1976
“[Sjuch action has heretofore been taken by both constitutional provisions and also by legislative action.” at 102, at 885 (1947).
Broomfield v. Maricopa County 544 P.2d 1080 Ariz. 1975
Broomfield v. Maricopa County 544 P.2d 1080 Ariz. 1975
: “The legislature may, so long as it does not itself contravene some constitutional provision, authorize the judiciary to act in matters relating to its functioning.
Birdsall v. Pima County 475 P.2d 250 Ariz. 1970
Birdsall v. Pima County 475 P.2d 250 Ariz. 1970
This Court decided a , where § 19-404, A.C.A., 1939, provided that the salaries of court reporters “ * * * shall be fixed by the judge of the court with the approval of the board of supervisors of the county * * We held there that: “The province of the Board of Supervisors in connection with the approval of the salary
Greyhound Parks of Arizona, Inc. v. Waitman 464 P.2d 966 Ariz. 1970
Greyhound Parks of Arizona, Inc. v. Waitman 464 P.2d 966 Ariz. 1970
Isley v. School District No. 2
Mann v. County of Maricopa 456 P.2d 931 Ariz. 1969
Mann v. County of Maricopa 456 P.2d 931 Ariz. 1969
This Court has determined the question of control in relation to court reporters, Powers v. Isley (1947), , .
King v. Henderson 423 P.2d 370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
King v. Henderson 423 P.2d 370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Sorenson v. Six Companies, Inc., , ; Burger v. Hirni, 50 Cal.App.2d 709
Sampson v. Transport Indemnity Company 405 P.2d 467 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Sampson v. Transport Indemnity Company 405 P.2d 467 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Milburn v. Burns 400 P.2d 354 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Milburn v. Burns 400 P.2d 354 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Enloe v. Baker 383 P.2d 748 Ariz. 1963
Enloe v. Baker 383 P.2d 748 Ariz. 1963
In other words, a statute must receive such construction as will make all its parts harmonize with *300 each other, and render them consistent with its general scope and object.’ ” , ; , ; , .
Kingsbery v. Kingsbery 379 P.2d 893 Ariz. 1963
Kingsbery v. Kingsbery 379 P.2d 893 Ariz. 1963
and approved in Cummings *227 v. Lockwood, , , 1015: “The several provisions of the statute should be construed together in the light of the general purpose and object of the act and so as to give effect to the main intent and purpose of the legislature as therein expre
Cummings v. Lockwood 327 P.2d 1012 Ariz. 1958
Cummings v. Lockwood 327 P.2d 1012 Ariz. 1958
: “ ‘The several provisions of the statute should be construed together in the light of the general purpose and object of the act and so as to give effect to the main intent and purpose of the legislature as therein expre
State Board of Technical Registration v. McDaniel 326 P.2d 348 Ariz. 1958
State Board of Technical Registration v. McDaniel 326 P.2d 348 Ariz. 1958
State v. Hoffman 279 P.2d 898 Ariz. 1955