Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Jenney v. Arizona Express, Inc., 362 P.2d 664.

44 citing documents.

Whiles v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Whiles v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
1984) (analyzing the analogous federal rule); (“Because Arizona has substantially adopted the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, we give great weight to the federal interpretations of the rules.”) (citing Jenney v. Ariz. Express, Inc., -74 (1956)).
Haroutunian v. Valueoptions Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Haroutunian v. Valueoptions Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
See Geyler, 144 Ariz. at 328, 697 P.2d at 1078 (adopting criteria established by Ninth Circuit for evaluating “whether to allow a delayed appeal” and noting “other courts have become less devoted to applying the strict letter of procedural law and more concerned with equitable disposition on the merits”); Jenney v. Ariz. Express, Inc., n.3, n.3 (App. 2006).
STATE EX REL. ARIZ. DEPT. OF REV. v. Short 965 P.2d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
STATE EX REL. ARIZ. DEPT. OF REV. v. Short 965 P.2d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
at 595 , 925 P.2d at 736 ( quoting Jenney v. Arizona Express, Inc., , ).
Hamilton v. State 925 P.2d 731 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Hamilton v. State 925 P.2d 731 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
after uniform construction by the officers required to act under it, the presumption is that the legislature knew of such construction and adopted it in re-enacting the statute.” Jenney v. Arizona Express, Inc., , ( , 108 P. 252 (1910)); see also Mummert v. Thunderbird Lanes, Inc., , Carriage Trade Mgmt.
JOHNSON BY JOHNSON v. Svidergol 757 P.2d 609 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
MacPherson v. Taglione 762 P.2d 596 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
MacPherson v. Taglione 762 P.2d 596 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Jenney v. Arizona Express, Inc.
JOHNSON BY JOHNSON v. Svidergol 757 P.2d 609 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Jenney v. Arizona Express, Inc.
La Paz County v. Yuma County 735 P.2d 772 Ariz. 1987
La Paz County v. Yuma County 735 P.2d 772 Ariz. 1987
Jenney v. Arizona Express, Inc.
Worth v. Board of Pardons and Paroles 703 P.2d 1246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Worth v. Board of Pardons and Paroles 703 P.2d 1246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Jenney v. Arizona Express, Inc.
Fox v. Town of Oro Valley 633 P.2d 428 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Fox v. Town of Oro Valley 633 P.2d 428 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Appellants argue that since the Town Council interprets the language differently and it is the administrative body applying and enforcing the ordinance, the trial court is bound by its interpretation, citing Jenney v. Arizona Express, Inc.
Dennis Development Co. v. Department of Revenue 595 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Dennis Development Co. v. Department of Revenue 595 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Based upon this legislative history and such cases as Jenney v. Arizona Express, Inc., , Revenue argues that the legislature is presumed to know of the construction placed on a statute by the administrative agency required to enforce it and the reenactment of that statute after such knowledge is an adoption by the legislature of the construction taken by the agency.
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
Jenney v. Arizona Express, Inc.
Carriage Trade Management Corp. v. Arizona State Tax Commission 557 P.2d 183 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Carriage Trade Management Corp. v. Arizona State Tax Commission 557 P.2d 183 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Jenney v. Arizona Express, Inc.
Fernandez v. Arizona Water Co. 516 P.2d 49 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Fernandez v. Arizona Water Co. 516 P.2d 49 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Saunders v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR CTY. OF MARICOPA 510 P.2d 740 Ariz. 1973
Saunders v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR CTY. OF MARICOPA 510 P.2d 740 Ariz. 1973
See Jenney v. Arizona Express, Inc., , Skurski v. Gurski, 329 Mich.
Edwards v. Young 486 P.2d 181 Ariz. 1971
Edwards v. Young 486 P.2d 181 Ariz. 1971
Jenney v. Arizona Exp., Inc., , ; , .
Mummert v. Thunderbird Lanes, Inc. 485 P.2d 814 Ariz. 1971
Mummert v. Thunderbird Lanes, Inc. 485 P.2d 814 Ariz. 1971
In Jenney v. Arizona Express, Inc., , we held that “[wjhere the legislature re-enacts a statute, * * * after uniform construction by the officers required to act under it, the presumption is that the legislature knew of such construction and adopted it in re-enacting the statute.
Arizona Foundation for Neurology & Psychiatry v. Sienerth 477 P.2d 758 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Arizona Foundation for Neurology & Psychiatry v. Sienerth 477 P.2d 758 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
In the cases cited by appellants for this proposition, City of Mesa v. Killingsworth, supra; Jenney Freight Line v. Arizona Express, Inc., , ; , there was an administrative practice of long standing and uniform interpretation of the statute involved, whereas in the present case the record shows that although four building permits were issued to Camelback Hospital between the period of ann
Tucson, Gas, Elec. Light & Power Company v. Board of Supervisors of Pima County 436 P.2d 942 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Tucson, Gas, Elec. Light & Power Company v. Board of Supervisors of Pima County 436 P.2d 942 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Jenny v. Arizona Express, Inc.
Gibbons v. Construction Trucking Service 430 P.2d 145 Ariz. 1967
Gibbons v. Construction Trucking Service 430 P.2d 145 Ariz. 1967
Pursuant to our opinion in Jenney v. Arizona Express, Inc., , , the petition if filed on the first date would have suspended the Commission’s order and the petition would have remained pending until acted upon by the Commission — whereas, if the petition had been filed on the latter date it would be denied by operation of law, without notice to Construction Trucki
Columbia Investment Co. v. M. M. Sundt Construction Co. 400 P.2d 132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Columbia Investment Co. v. M. M. Sundt Construction Co. 400 P.2d 132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Jenney Freight Line v. Arizona Express, Inc.
City of Tucson v. Arizona Corp. Commission 399 P.2d 913 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
City of Tucson v. Arizona Corp. Commission 399 P.2d 913 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
See also Jenney v. Arizona Express, Inc. (1961) , .
Paradise Valley Water Co. v. Arizona Corporation Com'n 377 P.2d 768 Ariz. 1963
Paradise Valley Water Co. v. Arizona Corporation Com'n 377 P.2d 768 Ariz. 1963
Since this appeal was commenced, we decided in the case of Jenney v. Arizona Express, Inc., , that under the provisions of A.R.S.