Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Lewis v. Industrial Commission, 380 P.2d 782.

28 citing documents.

Sun City Grand Community Ass'n v. Maricopa County 164 P.3d 679 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Sun City Grand Community Ass'n v. Maricopa County 164 P.3d 679 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Comm’n, , the Assessor argues that the identification of a class of intended users in A.R.S.
Estate of Wesolowski v. Industrial Commission 965 P.2d 60 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Estate of Wesolowski v. Industrial Commission 965 P.2d 60 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
See Lewis v. Industrial Comm’n, , (householder employing worker to remodel home is not employer subject to Act); Cooper v. Industrial Comm’n, -56 , -45 (1952) (householder employing carpenter to remodel private residence not employer subject to Act); Griebel v. Industrial Comm’n
In the Matter of Estate of Tovrea 845 P.2d 494 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
In the Matter of Estate of Tovrea 845 P.2d 494 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
See Lewis v. Industrial Comm’n, , see also BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 521 (5th ed.1979) (“When certain persons or things are specified in a law, contract, or will, an intention to exclude all others from its operation may be inferred.”) Although the maxim expressio unius is generally applied to statutory construction, othe
State v. Peruskov 800 P.2d 15 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Peruskov 800 P.2d 15 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
City of Phoenix v. SUPER. COURT, MARICOPA CTY. 696 P.2d 724 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
City of Phoenix v. SUPER. COURT, MARICOPA CTY. 696 P.2d 724 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Lancaster v. Arizona Board of Regents 694 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Lancaster v. Arizona Board of Regents 694 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
“When a statute enumerates the subjects upon which it is to operate it will be construed as excluding from its effect all subjects not specially mentioned.”
Griebel v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 650 P.2d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Griebel v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 650 P.2d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Greenway, Etc. v. Indus. Com'n of Ariz. 636 P.2d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Greenway Baptist Church v. Industrial Commission 636 P.2d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Greenway Baptist Church v. Industrial Commission 636 P.2d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
§ 23-901(5Xb), , and Stephens v. Industrial Commission, 26 Ariz.App.
Greenway, Etc. v. Indus. Com'n of Ariz. 636 P.2d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
§ 23-901(5)(b), , , are inapplicable.
Inspiration Consolidated Copper v. Industrial Commission 574 P.2d 478 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Inspiration Consolidated Copper v. Industrial Commission 574 P.2d 478 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Stephens v. Industrial Commission 547 P.2d 44 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Distinguished Stephens v. Industrial Commission 547 P.2d 44 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Arizona State Tax Commission v. First Bank Building Corp. 429 P.2d 481 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Arizona State Tax Commission v. First Bank Building Corp. 429 P.2d 481 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
In addition the Court will apply the rules of statutory construction of expressio unius est exclusio alterius and ejusdem generis, where applicable, , , respectively.” (Emphasis theirs.)
State v. Allred 425 P.2d 572 Ariz. 1967
State v. Allred 425 P.2d 572 Ariz. 1967
Phoenix Title & Trust Company v. Burns 395 P.2d 532 Ariz. 1964
Phoenix Title & Trust Company v. Burns 395 P.2d 532 Ariz. 1964
In addition the Court will apply the rules of statutory construction of expressio unius est exclusio alterius and ejusdem generis, where applicable, , , respectively.