Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Madrigal v. Industrial Commission, 210 P.2d 967.

38 citing documents.

9w Halo v. Ador Ariz. 2026
9w Halo v. Ador Ariz. 2026
Comm’n, see also Calvert v. Farmers Ins.
Marika Delgado v. Manor Care of Tucson 395 P.3d 698 Ariz. 2017
Marika Delgado v. Manor Care of Tucson 395 P.3d 698 Ariz. 2017
Comm’n, 7 MARIKA DELGADO, ET AL. V. MANOR CARE OF TUCSON, ET AL. Opinion of the Court (discussing doctrine of legislative acquiescence); ¶ 12 (App. 2001) (same).
Jeter v. Mayo Clinic Arizona 121 P.3d 1256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Jeter v. Mayo Clinic Arizona 121 P.3d 1256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Scheehle v. Justices of the Supreme Court 120 P.3d 1092 Ariz. 2005
Scheehle v. Justices of the Supreme Court 120 P.3d 1092 Ariz. 2005
Galloway v. Vanderpool 69 P.3d 23 Ariz. 2003
Galloway v. Vanderpool 69 P.3d 23 Ariz. 2003
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
Madrigal v. Industrial Comm’n
Safeway Insurance v. Collins 963 P.2d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Safeway Insurance v. Collins 963 P.2d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
See Madrigal v. Industrial Comm’n, , (holding that failure of legislature to change law for a long period following judicial construction of the law amounts to legislative approval and ratification).
Matter of Estate of Mason 947 P.2d 886 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Matter of Estate of Mason 947 P.2d 886 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
See Madrigal v. Industrial Comm’n, , (legislature’s failure to change law for long period of time after judicial decision amounts to legislative approval and ratification).
State Compensation Fund v. Mar Pac Helicopter Corp. 752 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State Compensation Fund v. Mar Pac Helicopter Corp. 752 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
See Madrigal v. Industrial Comm’n, , *355 142
Heltzel v. Mecham Pontiac 730 P.2d 226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Heltzel v. Mecham Pontiac 730 P.2d 226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
[1949]; Nor can a contract be formed by estoppel.
Hunt Bldg. Corp. v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZ. 713 P.2d 303 Ariz. 1986
Hunt Bldg. Corp. v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZ. 713 P.2d 303 Ariz. 1986
White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Industrial Commission 696 P.2d 223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Industrial Commission 696 P.2d 223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
De Anza Land & Leisure Corp. v. Federal Deposit Insurance 662 P.2d 1044 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
De Anza Land & Leisure Corp. v. Federal Deposit Insurance 662 P.2d 1044 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Jackson v. Northland Construction Co. 531 P.2d 144 Ariz. 1975
Jackson v. Northland Construction Co. 531 P.2d 144 Ariz. 1975
Van Horn v. Industrial Commission 523 P.2d 783 Ariz. 1974
Dykeman v. Mission Insurance Company 471 P.2d 317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Dykeman v. Mission Insurance Company 471 P.2d 317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
The intention of the parties controls the construction and interpretation of insurance contracts, , ; and the parties’ intent should be effectuated with the contract enforced as made, and the insttrer is required to pay damages only on property intended to be insured.
Koenig v. Mission Insurance 464 P.2d 987 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
State v. Datsi 462 P.2d 825 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
State v. Datsi 462 P.2d 825 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
State v. Superior Court of Pima County 454 P.2d 982 Ariz. 1969
State v. Superior Court of Pima County 454 P.2d 982 Ariz. 1969
mer act into the present law: “It is universally the rule that where a statute which has been construed by a court of last resort is reenacted in the same or substantially the same terms, the legislature is presumed to have placed its approval on the judicial interpretation given and to have adopted such construction and made it a part of the reenacted statute.” , .
Marquez v. Rapid Harvest Co. 358 P.2d 168 Ariz. 1960
Marquez v. Rapid Harvest Co. 358 P.2d 168 Ariz. 1960

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by