Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Mendelsohn v. Superior Court, 261 P.2d 983.

86 citing documents.

State Farm v. Balzan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State Farm v. Balzan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
See Mendelsohn v. Superior Ct. in & for Maricopa Cnty., (“The court when construing a statute should give it a sensible construction, such as will accomplish the legislative intent and if possible avoid an absurd conclusion or avoid making the statute invalid.”).
Victor Sanchez-Ravuelta Janette Dodge v. Yavapai County Town of Dewey-Humboldt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
Victor Sanchez-Ravuelta Janette Dodge v. Yavapai County Town of Dewey-Humboldt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
distribution of alcoholic beverages.”
Simms v. Simms Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Simms v. Simms Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Furlong 473 P.3d 707 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Furlong 473 P.3d 707 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State of Arizona Ex Rel. Montgomery v. Hrach Shilgevorkyan 322 P.3d 160 Ariz. 2014
State of Arizona Ex Rel. Montgomery v. Hrach Shilgevorkyan 322 P.3d 160 Ariz. 2014
Ct. in and for Maricopa Cnty., , -88 (1953).
Scenic Arizona v. City of Phoenix Board of Adjustment 268 P.3d 370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Scenic Arizona v. City of Phoenix Board of Adjustment 268 P.3d 370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
("We find that whether the legislature has given [petitioners] the right to appeal cannot be determined by looking only to the phrase ‘the person aggrieved’.
State v. Thompson 65 P.3d 420 Ariz. 2003
State v. Thompson 65 P.3d 420 Ariz. 2003
Hohokam Irrigation & Drainage District v. Arizona Public Service Co. 35 P.3d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Hohokam Irrigation & Drainage District v. Arizona Public Service Co. 35 P.3d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
(“[W]ords and phrases in a statute are to be accorded their obvious and natural meaning [and] ...
Allstate Insurance v. Universal Underwriters, Inc. 17 P.3d 106 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Allstate Insurance v. Universal Underwriters, Inc. 17 P.3d 106 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
(words and phrases in statute are to be accorded their obvious and natural meaning); , (to avoid contradictory construction of clauses, sentences, or words, statutes that are in pari materia must be “read together and harmonized”).
Jennings v. Woods 982 P.2d 274 Ariz. 1999
Jennings v. Woods 982 P.2d 274 Ariz. 1999
C. The Purpose of the Section 40-101 Prohibitions — The Avoidance of Conflicts ¶ 65 Just as Jones sought to avoid absurd results, we assess whether application of the statute to West creates an untenable result or otherwise fails to “effect the object” of section 40-101 and “promote justice.” , -88 (1953); (considering the “effects and consequences, and the spirit and purpose of the law”).
Samaritan Health System v. Superior Court 981 P.2d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Samaritan Health System v. Superior Court 981 P.2d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Johnson 827 P.2d 1134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Johnson 827 P.2d 1134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
In doing so, we must presume the legislature expressed itself in as clear a manner as possible, , and that it accorded words their natural and obvious meanings unless stating otherwise.
Ban v. Quigley 812 P.2d 1014 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Ban v. Quigley 812 P.2d 1014 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Carrillo v. El Mirage Roadhouse, Inc. 793 P.2d 121 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Carrillo v. El Mirage Roadhouse, Inc. 793 P.2d 121 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Collins v. Truman 783 P.2d 813 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Collins v. Truman 783 P.2d 813 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Cochise County v. Borowiec 781 P.2d 1379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Cochise County v. Borowiec 781 P.2d 1379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Arizona Bank v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 713 P.2d 337 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Arizona Bank v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 713 P.2d 337 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
1143 (D.Ariz.1984); , , 180 P. 159 (1919).
State v. Heylmun 708 P.2d 778 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Heylmun 708 P.2d 778 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
The second, at least in Arizona, is that statutes shall be liberally construed to effect their objects and to promote justice____” at 169 , at 987 (1953); see also A.R.S.
Tanner Companies v. Arizona State Land Department 688 P.2d 1075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Tanner Companies v. Arizona State Land Department 688 P.2d 1075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Odle v. Shamrock Dairy of Phoenix, Inc., 7 Ariz.App.
Ontiveros v. Borak 667 P.2d 200 Ariz. 1983
Ontiveros v. Borak 667 P.2d 200 Ariz. 1983
Conversely, , that the liquor laws were designed “to protect the welfare, health, peace, temperance, and safety of all the citizens by providing for the strict regulation and control” of the industry.
State v. Van Dyke 621 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1980
Arden-Mayfair, Inc. v. STATE, DEPT. OF LIQ. LIC. & C. 599 P.2d 793 Ariz. 1979
Overruled Arden-Mayfair, Inc. v. STATE, DEPT. OF LIQ. LIC. & C. 599 P.2d 793 Ariz. 1979
The decision in Lane , however, , which held that protestants were “persons aggrieved” under a statute conferring the right to appeal to those persons aggrieved by an administrative ruling.
McKinney v. Aldrich 600 P.2d 1120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Lewis v. Wolf 596 P.2d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Lewis v. Wolf 596 P.2d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
the court stated: “The liquor laws of Arizona are plainly designed to protect the welfare, health, peace, temperance, and safety of all the citizens by providing for the strict regulation and control of the manufacture, sale, and distribution of alcoholic beverages.” (Emphasis added) 76 Ariz. at
Dearing v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 589 P.2d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Dearing v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 589 P.2d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
State v. Valenzuela 567 P.2d 1190 Ariz. 1977
State v. Valenzuela 567 P.2d 1190 Ariz. 1977