Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Wise, 671 P.2d 909.
- Workers v. Tempe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
-
Workers v. Tempe
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
n.3 (1983) (explaining courts may reference dictionaries to glean the ordinary meaning of words); Cuomo v. Clearing House Ass'n, L.L.C., 557 U.S. 519, 526 (2009) (interpreting a statute based on the understanding of terms at the time of enactment).
- State v. Stuebe 467 P.3d 252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
-
State v. Stuebe
467 P.3d 252
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
§ 1-213 (2002) ("Words and phrases shall be construed according to the common and approved use of the language."); n.3 (1983) (stating that unless the legislature expressly defines a statutory term, courts give the word its plain and ordinary meaning, which may be taken from the dictionary).
- Vangilder v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
-
Vangilder v. Pinal County
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
“[R]eference to established, respected dictionaries is appropriate in determining the commonly accepted meaning of words.” Sierra Tucson, ().
- Stambaugh v. Butler 379 P.3d 250 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- State v. Paskins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-
State v. Paskins
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 12 (App. 1999) (noting we refer to a widely used and established dictionary to determine a term’s plain and ordinary meaning) ( n.3 (1983)).
- Bourne v. McClennen 333 P.3d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-
Bourne v. McClennen
333 P.3d 750
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
And, we may determine the ordinary meaning of a word by referring to “established and widely used dictionaries.” Fields, 234 Ariz. at 219, ¶ 20 , 320 P.3d at 1165 ( , 470 n. 3, , 911 n. 3 (1983)).
- Pendergast v. Arizona State Retirement System 323 P.3d 1186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
- Pendergast v. Arizona State Retirement System 323 P.3d 1186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
- 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
470 n. 3, , 911 n. 3 (1983); see Baker v. Univ.
- Hon. Fields v. Elected Officials Retirement Ariz. 2014
- Fields v. Elected Officials' Retirement Plan 320 P.3d 1160 Ariz. 2014
- Fields v. Elected Officials' Retirement Plan 320 P.3d 1160 Ariz. 2014
- Hon. Fields v. Elected Officials Retirement Ariz. 2014
- Stout v. Taylor 311 P.3d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
-
Stout v. Taylor
311 P.3d 1088
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Special Fund Div. v. Industrial Com’n of Arizona, ¶ 12 , , 470 n. 3, , 911 n. 3 (1983).
- Karl v. US Bank National Ass'n 308 P.3d 1173 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
-
Karl v. US Bank National Ass'n
308 P.3d 1173
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
“It is dear that words and phrases in statutes shall be given their ordinary meaning unless it appears from context or otherwise that a different meaning is intended.” , 470 n. 3, , 911 n. 3 (1983); see also Padilla v. Indus.
- State v. Kendrick 306 P.3d 85 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
-
State v. Kendrick
306 P.3d 85
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
§ 1-213 (2002) (directing that words in statutes “be construed according to the common and approved use of the language”); , 470 n. 3, , 911 n. 3 (1983) (“words and phrases in statutes shall be given their ordinary meaning unless it appears from context or otherwise that a different meaning is intended”); ¶ 9 , (“We recognize that a dictionary definition may not
- Special Fund Division v. Industrial Commission 302 P.3d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
-
Special Fund Division v. Industrial Commission
302 P.3d 635
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
470 n. 3, , 911 n. 3 (1983).
- Helvetica Servicing, Inc. v. Pasquan 277 P.3d 198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
-
Helvetica Servicing, Inc. v. Pasquan
277 P.3d 198
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Grp., ¶ 17 , ( , 470 n. 3, , 911 n. 3 (1983)) (in determining the plain meaning of a term in a statute, courts refer to established and widely used dictionaries).
- Estate of braden/gabaldon v. State 266 P.3d 349 Ariz. 2011
-
Estate of braden/gabaldon v. State
266 P.3d 349
Ariz. 2011
470 n. 3, , 911 n. 3 (1983).
- State v. Regenold 249 P.3d 337 Ariz. 2011
- In Re Pinal County Mental Health No. Mh-201000029 240 P.3d 1262 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
-
In Re Pinal County Mental Health No. Mh-201000029
240 P.3d 1262
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
¶¶ 42-43 , , 470 n. 3, , 911 n. 3 (1983).
- Grand v. Nacchio 236 P.3d 398 Ariz. 2010
-
Grand v. Nacchio
236 P.3d 398
Ariz. 2010
§ 1-213 (2002) (“Words and phrases shall be construed according to the common and approved use of the language.”); n.3, n.3 (1983) (referring to an “established, widely respected dictionary for the ordinary meaning” of a statutory term).
- State v. Arizona Navigable Stream Adjudication Commission 229 P.3d 242 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
-
State v. Arizona Navigable Stream Adjudication Commission
229 P.3d 242
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
See, , 470 n. 3, , 911 n. 3 (1983).
- Sklar v. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS 207 P.3d 702 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
-
Sklar v. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
207 P.3d 702
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
The plain meaning of “principal” includes “most important, consequential, or influential,” “chief,” and “a matter or thing of primary importance.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 987 (11th ed. 2007); , 470 n. 3, , 911 n. 3 (1983) (explaining courts may reference dictionaries to glean ordinary meaning of words).
- Michael Redhair v. Kinerk, Beal, Schmidt, Dyer & Sethi, P.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
-
Michael Redhair v. Kinerk, Beal, Schmidt, Dyer & Sethi, P.C.
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
This comports with the ordinary meaning of the term: a “contract between an employer and employee in which the terms and conditions of employment are stated.” Black’s Law Dictionary 321 (7th ed. 1999); n.3, n.3 (1983) (approving use of dictionary to determine ordinary meaning).
- 1800 OCOTILLO, LLC v. WLB Group, Inc. 176 P.3d 33 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
-
1800 OCOTILLO, LLC v. WLB Group, Inc.
176 P.3d 33
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Black’s Law Dictionary 429, 737, 772 (7th ed.1999); , (holding that unless legislature gives special meaning to a statutory word, court gives word ordinary meaning); , 470 n. 3, , 911 n. 3 (1983) (stating that in determining ordinary meaning of a word a court may refer to established and widely used dictionary).
- State v. Taylor 166 P.3d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
-
State v. Taylor
166 P.3d 118
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
470 n. 3, , 911 n. 3 (1983).
- Lincoln v. Holt 156 P.3d 438 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
-
Lincoln v. Holt
156 P.3d 438
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
¶ 8 Further, “apply” means “to put into operation or effect (apply a law).” Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 56 (10th ed.2001); , (relying on dictionary definitions as an aid to statutory interpretation).
- William Roubos v. Hon. Leslie miller/tucson 153 P.3d 1045 Ariz. 2007
-
William Roubos v. Hon. Leslie miller/tucson
153 P.3d 1045
Ariz. 2007
See BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 32 (8th ed. 2004); see also State v. Wise, 137 Ariz. 468, 470 n.3, n.3 (1983) (approving reference - 4 - to dictionary to determine ordinary meaning).