Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Ernst v. Collins, 302 P.2d 941.

48 citing documents.

Rowe International, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 796 P.2d 924 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Rowe International, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 796 P.2d 924 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Prescott Newspapers, Inc. v. Yavapai Community Hospital Ass'n 785 P.2d 1221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Prescott Newspapers, Inc. v. Yavapai Community Hospital Ass'n 785 P.2d 1221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Gartin v. St. Joseph's Hospital & Medical Center 749 P.2d 941 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Gartin v. St. Joseph's Hospital & Medical Center 749 P.2d 941 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Columbia Group, Inc. v. Jackson 725 P.2d 1110 Ariz. 1986
Columbia Group, Inc. v. Jackson 725 P.2d 1110 Ariz. 1986
Brown Wholesale Electric Co. v. Merchants Mutual Bonding Co. 713 P.2d 291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Brown Wholesale Electric Co. v. Merchants Mutual Bonding Co. 713 P.2d 291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Brown Wholesale Electric Co. v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America 659 P.2d 1299 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Brown Wholesale Electric Co. v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America 659 P.2d 1299 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. Mohave County 649 P.2d 262 Ariz. 1982
El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. Mohave County 649 P.2d 262 Ariz. 1982
State v. Ramos 648 P.2d 119 Ariz. 1982
State v. Ramos 648 P.2d 119 Ariz. 1982
O'Malley Lumber Co. v. Riley 613 P.2d 629 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
O'Malley Lumber Co. v. Riley 613 P.2d 629 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Arizona State Board of Accountancy v. Keebler 564 P.2d 928 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Arizona State Board of Accountancy v. Keebler 564 P.2d 928 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Balestrieri v. Hartford Acci *241 dent and Indemnity Insurance Co.
Members of the Board of Education of the Pearce Union High School District v. Leslie 543 P.2d 775 Ariz. 1975
Members of the Board of Education of the Pearce Union High School District v. Leslie 543 P.2d 775 Ariz. 1975
Camerena v. Department of Public Welfare 449 P.2d 957 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
State v. Cutshaw 437 P.2d 962 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State v. Cutshaw 437 P.2d 962 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Bonnin v. Industrial Commission 432 P.2d 283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Bonnin v. Industrial Commission 432 P.2d 283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
J{: ‡ , it is stated on page 181 of the Arizona Reports, 302 P.2d on page 945: “The cardinal rule of statutory interpretation is that the intent of the legislature must be ascertained and followed (citing cases).
State Ex Rel. Lassen v. Harpham 410 P.2d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
State Ex Rel. Lassen v. Harpham 410 P.2d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Boies v. Cole 407 P.2d 917 Ariz. 1965
Boies v. Cole 407 P.2d 917 Ariz. 1965
Marquez v. Rapid Harvest Co. 405 P.2d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Marquez v. Rapid Harvest Co. 405 P.2d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Police Pension Board of City of Phoenix v. Warren 398 P.2d 892 Ariz. 1965
City of Mesa v. Killingsworth 394 P.2d 410 Ariz. 1964
City of Mesa v. Killingsworth 394 P.2d 410 Ariz. 1964
Payne v. Knox 385 P.2d 514 Ariz. 1963
Payne v. Knox 385 P.2d 514 Ariz. 1963
State v. Airesearch Mfg.
Employment Security Commission of Arizona v. Fish 375 P.2d 20 Ariz. 1962
Employment Security Commission of Arizona v. Fish 375 P.2d 20 Ariz. 1962
Marquez v. Rapid Harvest Co. 358 P.2d 168 Ariz. 1960
Marquez v. Rapid Harvest Co. 358 P.2d 168 Ariz. 1960
Avery v. Pima County,, , 60 P. 702 .
State v. Stockton 333 P.2d 735 Ariz. 1958
State v. Stockton 333 P.2d 735 Ariz. 1958
Hart v. Arganese 313 P.2d 756 Ariz. 1957
Hart v. Arganese 313 P.2d 756 Ariz. 1957
Resolution of this issue is one of pure statutory construction, and, therefore, the rule fundamental and controlling is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the legislature, , ; , ; *384 where the language of a statute is susceptible of more than one interpretation the court must adopt the interpretation which is reasonable, , ; , 247 P. 799 .
Vance v. Lassen 310 P.2d 510 Ariz. 1957
Vance v. Lassen 310 P.2d 510 Ariz. 1957
Respondent denied that petitioners were entitled to a “supplementary well” , .