Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State Ex Rel. Morrison v. Anway, 349 P.2d 774.

74 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. hon.gordon/owen Ariz. 2025
State of Arizona v. hon.gordon/owen Ariz. 2025
see also Mussi, 255 Ariz. at 402 10 The same is true for the court of appeals’ citations to Commonwealth v. Satterfield, 255 A.3d 438 (Pa.
In Re: Erica Krystal Riggins 544 P.3d 64 Ariz. 2024
In Re: Erica Krystal Riggins 544 P.3d 64 Ariz. 2024
Twin City Fire Insurance Co. v. Graciela Leija 422 P.3d 1033 Ariz. 2018
Twin City Fire Insurance Co. v. Graciela Leija 422 P.3d 1033 Ariz. 2018
Oursland v. Hon mackey/aps Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Oursland v. Hon mackey/aps Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
(we “cannot read into a statute something which is not within the manifest intention of the legislature as gathered from the statute itself”).
Empire Sw. LLC v. Ariz. Dep't of Revenue 422 P.3d 1082 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
John Fitzgerald v. Hon. myers/state Ex Rel Brnovich Ariz. 2017
John Fitzgerald v. Hon. myers/state Ex Rel Brnovich Ariz. 2017
State v. Farnsworth 389 P.3d 88 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
Rader v. Greenberg Traurig, LLP 352 P.3d 465 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Rader v. Greenberg Traurig, LLP 352 P.3d 465 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(“[C]ourts cannot read into a statute something which is not within the manifest intention of the legislature as gathered from the statute itself.”).
State v. Pledger 341 P.3d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Pledger 341 P.3d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(this court “cannot read into a statute something which is not within the manifest intention of the legislature as gathered from the statute itself”).
Tri City v. Grady Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Tri City v. Grady Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Weitz Co. v. Heth 314 P.3d 569 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Weitz Co. v. Heth 314 P.3d 569 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
(“It is a universal rule that courts will not enlarge, stretch, expand, or extend a statute to matters not falling within its express provisions.”); Lewis v. Midway Lumber, Inc., , (“The courts cannot read into either the statutes or the c
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
State v. Glassel 248 P.3d 217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Glassel 248 P.3d 217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State of Arizona v. John David Franklin, Sr. & John David Franklin, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. John David Franklin, Sr. & John David Franklin, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Jeffrey Lee Hinden Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Jeffrey Lee Hinden Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
(“It is a universal rule that courts will not enlarge, stretch, expand, or extend a statute to matters not falling within its express provisions.”).
STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS v. Kiger 229 P.3d 264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS v. Kiger 229 P.3d 264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
("It is a universal rule that courts will not enlarge, stretch, expand, or extend a statute to matters not falling within its express provisions.").
In Re Martin M. and Rene N. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
In Re Martin M. 221 P.3d 1058 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
In Re Martin M. and Rene N. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
In Re Martin M. 221 P.3d 1058 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
In Re Marbella P. 221 P.3d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
In Re Marbella P. 221 P.3d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
(courts will not enlarge, stretch, or expand a statute to matters not falling within its express provisions).
In Re the Jury Selection Process 207 P.3d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
In Re the Jury Selection Process 207 P.3d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
(“It is a universal rule that courts will not enlarge, stretch, expand, or extend a statute to matters not falling within its express provisions ....
In re MH 2007-000629 197 P.3d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 197 P.3d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 197 P.3d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
("It is a universal rule that courts will not enlarge, stretch, expand, or extend a statute to matters not falling within its express provisions.") ¶ 10 Although § 36-359(B) may seem to require a patient's presence at her hearing, we have held that the right to attend one's hearing is a
In re MH 2007-000629 197 P.3d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
(“It is a universal rule that courts will not enlarge, stretch, expand, or extend a statute to matters not falling within its express provisions.”) ¶ 10 Although § 36-359(B) may seem to require a patient’s presence at her hearing, we have held that the right to attend one’s hearing is a
Antonio P. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 187 P.3d 1115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Antonio P. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 187 P.3d 1115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
“It is a universal rule that courts will not enlarge, stretch, expand, or extend a statute to matters not falling within its express provisions.” -09 , -76 (1960) (holding that the legislature did not intend a statute requiring well operators to report the legal descriptions of the land upon which a well was located to limit the use of water drawn from the well to only the land covered in the legal description).
Sheehan v. Flower 170 P.3d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Sheehan v. Flower 170 P.3d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
(“[C]ourts cannot read into a statute something which is not within the manifest intention of the legislature as gathered from the statute itself.”); ¶ 26 , (“We cannot enlarge, ...
Arizona State Democratic Party v. State 98 P.3d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Arizona State Democratic Party v. State 98 P.3d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Bridgestone Firestone North America Tire v. A.P.S. Rent a Car & Leasing Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Bridgestone Firestone North America Tire v. A.P.S. Rent a Car & Leasing Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004