Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Sakrison v. Pierce, 185 P.2d 528.

29 citing documents.

A Z N H v. Sunland Springs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Planned Parenthood v. Kristin mayes/hazelrigg Ariz. 2024
Planned Parenthood v. Kristin mayes/hazelrigg Ariz. 2024
(noting that the policy section of an act “would be controlling” in interpreting “an operative portion of the statute that was ambiguous or of doubtful meaning or application”).
In Re Andrew C. 160 P.3d 687 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
In Re Andrew C. 160 P.3d 687 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
*369 , (“[I]t is a firmly established rule that definitions of terms given within the framework of a statute itself control and dictate the meaning of those terms as used in the statute.”).
Cronin v. Sheldon 991 P.2d 231 Ariz. 1999
Cronin v. Sheldon 991 P.2d 231 Ariz. 1999
-73 , Foremost Life Ins.
Merrick v. Lewis 964 P.2d 473 Ariz. 1998
Merrick v. Lewis 964 P.2d 473 Ariz. 1998
We ordinarily agree, in the absence of other compelling factors, that when “a statute expresses first a general intent, and afterwards an inconsistent particular intent, the latter will be taken as an exception from the former *275 and both will stand.” , (quoting 1 Lewis’ Sutherland on Statutory Construction ¶ 268 (2d ed.1904)).
Building Products Co. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 604 P.2d 1148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Building Products Co. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 604 P.2d 1148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Pima County v. Cardi 600 P.2d 37 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Pima County v. Cardi 600 P.2d 37 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Foremost Life Insurance v. Trimble 580 P.2d 360 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Foremost Life Insurance v. Trimble 580 P.2d 360 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
State v. Cassius 520 P.2d 1109 Ariz. 1974
State v. Cassius 520 P.2d 1109 Ariz. 1974
Yetman v. Naumann 492 P.2d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Yetman v. Naumann 492 P.2d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Campbell v. Commonwealth Plan, Inc. 422 P.2d 118 Ariz. 1966
Campbell v. Commonwealth Plan, Inc. 422 P.2d 118 Ariz. 1966
and Moore v. Farmers Mut.
Johnson v. Wilson & Co. 124 N.W.2d 496 Minn. 1963
Employment Security Commission v. Acosta 378 P.2d 929 Ariz. 1963
Employment Security Commission v. Acosta 378 P.2d 929 Ariz. 1963
Vickers v. Western Electric Company 339 P.2d 1033 Ariz. 1959
Distinguished Vickers v. Western Electric Company 339 P.2d 1033 Ariz. 1959
* * * ” The cases relied upon by appellants are clearly distinguishable from the ones now before us. For example, , , 173 A.L.R.
County of Pima v. School District No. One 278 P.2d 430 Ariz. 1954
County of Pima v. School District No. One 278 P.2d 430 Ariz. 1954
82 C.J.S., Statutes, § 315, page 536; Sisk v. Arizona Ice & Cold Storage Co., , ; , , 173 A.L.R.
State Ex Rel. Industrial Commission v. Pressley 250 P.2d 992 Ariz. 1952