Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Adams v. Bolin, 247 P.2d 617.

126 citing documents.

Brush Wellman, Inc. v. Lee 996 P.2d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
overruled on other grounds, , (court rule prevails over legislative rule that unduly hampers court in administering justice).
State Ex Rel. Napolitano v. Brown 982 P.2d 815 Ariz. 1999
State Ex Rel. Napolitano v. Brown 982 P.2d 815 Ariz. 1999
Put another way, the legislature “has all power not expressly prohibited or granted to another branch of the government.”
City of Sierra Vista v. Director, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 988 P.2d 162 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
City of Sierra Vista v. Director, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 988 P.2d 162 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
overruled in part on other grounds
Sedona Private Property Owners Ass'n v. City of Sedona 961 P.2d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Sedona Private Property Owners Ass'n v. City of Sedona 961 P.2d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Winkle v. City of Tucson 949 P.2d 502 Ariz. 1997
Winkle v. City of Tucson 949 P.2d 502 Ariz. 1997
In Re Cameron T. 949 P.2d 545 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
In Re Cameron T. 949 P.2d 545 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
overruled in part on other grounds
City of Tucson v. Pima County 949 P.2d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
City of Tucson v. Pima County 949 P.2d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
No Insurance Section/Special Fund Division v. Industrial Commission 927 P.2d 791 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
No Insurance Section/Special Fund Division v. Industrial Commission 927 P.2d 791 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Because it did, we presume that the legislature intended the word “benefit” to have meaning, , and that it intended the penalty to be part of the employee’s benefits; otherwise, it would not have provided that the benefit penalty be “in addition to any benefits” awarded by the Commission.
Airness & Accountability in Insurance Reform v. Greene 886 P.2d 1338 Ariz. 1994
FAIRNESS & ACCT. IN INS. REFORM v. Greene 886 P.2d 1338 Ariz. 1994
FAIRNESS & ACCT. IN INS. REFORM v. Greene 886 P.2d 1338 Ariz. 1994
("In the absence of express statutory power, the courts are without jurisdiction to interfere ...
Canon School District No. 50 v. W.E.S. Construction Co. 869 P.2d 500 Ariz. 1994
Canon School District No. 50 v. W.E.S. Construction Co. 869 P.2d 500 Ariz. 1994
As we have stated before, “[w]e are not aware of any absurdity or inconsistency that will arise by construing [a statute] to mean what it says.”
Slayton v. Shumway 800 P.2d 590 Ariz. 1990
Slayton v. Shumway 800 P.2d 590 Ariz. 1990
City of Flagstaff v. Mangum 793 P.2d 548 Ariz. 1990
City of Flagstaff v. Mangum 793 P.2d 548 Ariz. 1990
the City argues that the constitutional requirement of fifteen percent must be applied to all electors eligible to vote.
State v. Coats 797 P.2d 693 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Coats 797 P.2d 693 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Lopez 786 P.2d 959 Ariz. 1990
State v. Lopez 786 P.2d 959 Ariz. 1990
Maricopa County v. Arizona Tax Court 781 P.2d 41 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Maricopa County v. Arizona Tax Court 781 P.2d 41 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Fowler 752 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Fowler 752 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
247 P.2d *411 617, 626 (1952).
Bussanich v. Douglas 733 P.2d 644 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Bussanich v. Douglas 733 P.2d 644 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Proctor v. Parada 700 P.2d 901 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Proctor v. Parada 700 P.2d 901 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
American Bus Lines, Inc. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 633 P.2d 404 Ariz. 1981
American Bus Lines, Inc. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 633 P.2d 404 Ariz. 1981
Pinetop-Lakeside Sanitary District v. Ferguson 630 P.2d 1032 Ariz. 1981
Pinetop-Lakeside Sanitary District v. Ferguson 630 P.2d 1032 Ariz. 1981
Clark v. City of Tucson, 1 Ariz.App.
Terry v. Lincscott Hotel Corp. 617 P.2d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Terry v. Lincscott Hotel Corp. 617 P.2d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
In interpreting a statute, full effect is to be given to the legislative intent, “and each word, phrase, clause and sentence must be given meaning so that no part will be void, inert, redundant or trivial.”
Cohen v. State 588 P.2d 313 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Continental Casualty Co. v. Industrial Commission 547 P.2d 470 Ariz. 1976
Continental Casualty Co. v. Industrial Commission 547 P.2d 470 Ariz. 1976
P.2d 410 (1964); , , P.2d 540 (1953)
Citizens for Orderly Development & Environment v. City of Phoenix 540 P.2d 1239 Ariz. 1975
Citizens for Orderly Development & Environment v. City of Phoenix 540 P.2d 1239 Ariz. 1975
Also see, , , Queen Creek Land &amp
Queen Creek Land & Cattle Corp. v. Yavapai County Board of Supervisors 501 P.2d 391 Ariz. 1972
Queen Creek Land & Cattle Corp. v. Yavapai County Board of Supervisors 501 P.2d 391 Ariz. 1972
Lee v. Superior Court 472 P.2d 34 Ariz. 1970

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by