Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Frye v. South Phoenix Volunteer Fire Co., 224 P.2d 651.

61 citing documents.

Sanchez v. Maricopa County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Sanchez v. Maricopa County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
n conjunction with the other provisions, giving meaning, if possible, to ‘each word, clause or sentence, 4 SANCHEZ, et al. v. MARICOPA COUNTY Decision of the Court considered in the light of the entire act itself and the purpose for which it was enacted into law.’”) (); ¶ 21 (App. 2008) (interpreting § 11-251(1) as granting the board authority to supervise county officers “in some limited circumstances”).
Marriage of Doty-Perez v. Doty-Perez 388 P.3d 9 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Marriage of Doty-Perez v. Doty-Perez 388 P.3d 9 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
DOTY-PEREZ v. DOTY-PEREZ Opinion of the Court conjunction with the other provisions, giving meaning, if possible, ‘to each word, clause or sentence, considered in the light of the entire act itself and the purpose for which it was enacted into law.’” ¶ 7, ( ).
Democratic Party of Pima County v. Beth Ford Pima County Board of Supervisors 269 P.3d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Democratic Party of Pima County v. Beth Ford Pima County Board of Supervisors 269 P.3d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
SEMPRE LTD. PARTNERSHIP v. Maricopa County 235 P.3d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
SEMPRE LTD. PARTNERSHIP v. Maricopa County 235 P.3d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
(explaining that the meaning of “may” as mandatory or permissive depends on legislative intent).
State v. Lewis 233 P.3d 625 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Hansen 147 P.3d 1050 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State v. Hansen 147 P.3d 1050 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
(meaning of “may” as mandatory or permissive depends on legislative intent).
O'CONNOR v. Hyatt 87 P.3d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
O'CONNOR v. Hyatt 87 P.3d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
This argument was rejected in Jones : Every provision of a statute must be read in conjunction with the other provisions, giving meaning, if possible, to “each word, clause or sentence, considered in the light of the entire act itself and the purpose for which it was enacted into law.”
TANQUE VERDE UNIFIED SCHOOL v. Bernini 76 P.3d 874 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
TANQUE VERDE UNIFIED SCHOOL v. Bernini 76 P.3d 874 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Hohokam Irrigation & Drainage District v. Arizona Public Service Co. 64 P.3d 836 Ariz. 2003
Hohokam Irrigation & Drainage District v. Arizona Public Service Co. 64 P.3d 836 Ariz. 2003
Bunker's Glass Co. v. Pilkington PlC 47 P.3d 1119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Bunker's Glass Co. v. Pilkington PlC 47 P.3d 1119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
-71 , (statutes must be interpreted in harmony with the constitution).
Norman v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 33 P.3d 530 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Norman v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 33 P.3d 530 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Kimble v. City of Page 20 P.3d 605 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Kimble v. City of Page 20 P.3d 605 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Hoggatt 18 P.3d 1239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Hoggatt 18 P.3d 1239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Jones 995 P.2d 742 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Jones 995 P.2d 742 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Every provision of a statute must be read in conjunction with the other provisions, giving meaning, if possible, to “each word, clause or sentence, considered in the light of the entire act itself and the purpose for which it was enacted into law.”
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Apache County 837 P.2d 139 Ariz. 1992
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Apache County 837 P.2d 139 Ariz. 1992
(“where there is no contrary textual or legislative expression of intent on a particular application, we must apply the statute in such a manner as will best serve the legislature’s purposes, policies, and goals”); -69 , -56 (1950) (statutes must be interpreted in harmony with the constitution).
State v. Garza Rodriguez 791 P.2d 633 Ariz. 1990
State v. Garza Rodriguez 791 P.2d 633 Ariz. 1990
Mountain States Legal Foundation v. Apache County 706 P.2d 1246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Mountain States Legal Foundation v. Apache County 706 P.2d 1246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Lake Havasu City v. Mohave County 675 P.2d 1371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Lake Havasu City v. Mohave County 675 P.2d 1371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
: The meaning of the word “may” has been interpreted by this court in a number of cases, in some of which was held to mean “must” while in others it was considered to be permissive only depending upon the legislative intent as ascertained by the court in applying the ordinary rules of statutory co
Torrez v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 635 P.2d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Torrez v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 635 P.2d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Castregon v. Huerta 580 P.2d 1197 Ariz. 1978
Castregon v. Huerta 580 P.2d 1197 Ariz. 1978
Apache East, Inc. v. Wiegand 580 P.2d 769 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Apache East, Inc. v. Wiegand 580 P.2d 769 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
P.2d 651 (1950); State v. Mileham, 1 Ariz.App.
Board of County Supervisors v. Rio Rico Volunteer Fire District 580 P.2d 1215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Board of County Supervisors v. Rio Rico Volunteer Fire District 580 P.2d 1215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
The trial court, after hearing the evidence, ruled in appellee’s favor and in its final order stated: “ , , is almost on all fours with the issue in this proceeding and is authority for the statement that courts are vested with jurisdiction and power to grant relief from abuse of discretion by an administrative body.
Golder v. Department of Revenue, State Board of Tax Appeals 599 P.2d 227 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Golder v. Department of Revenue, State Board of Tax Appeals 599 P.2d 227 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Valenzuela 567 P.2d 1190 Ariz. 1977
State v. Valenzuela 567 P.2d 1190 Ariz. 1977
Arizona State Tax Commission v. Reiser 512 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1973
Arizona State Tax Commission v. Reiser 512 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1973
State v. Airesearch Mfg.
Welsh v. Arizona State Board of Accountancy 484 P.2d 201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971