Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Phoenix Title & Trust Company v. Burns, 395 P.2d 532.

41 citing documents.

Patterson v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Office 865 P.2d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Patterson v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Office 865 P.2d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Co. of Arizona, , (citing Phoenix Title & , , ).
Rotter v. Coconino County 805 P.2d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Rotter v. Coconino County 805 P.2d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Maricopa County v. Arizona Tax Court 781 P.2d 41 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Maricopa County v. Arizona Tax Court 781 P.2d 41 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Ramos 747 P.2d 629 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Ramos 747 P.2d 629 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Calvert v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona 697 P.2d 684 Ariz. 1985
Calvert v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona 697 P.2d 684 Ariz. 1985
Dessauer v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 687 P.2d 392 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Dessauer v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 687 P.2d 392 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
McIntyre v. Mohave County 618 P.2d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
McIntyre v. Mohave County 618 P.2d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Sandblom v. Corbin 608 P.2d 317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Sandblom v. Corbin 608 P.2d 317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
The cardinal rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the lawmaking body, , Phoenix Title & , and such construction is ordinarily a question of law.
Matter of Estate of Beaman 583 P.2d 270 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Matter of Estate of Beaman 583 P.2d 270 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
State v. Selby 544 P.2d 717 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
State v. Selby 544 P.2d 717 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Ebasco Services, , Phoenix Title &amp
Gillard v. Estrella Dells I Improvement District 541 P.2d 932 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Gillard v. Estrella Dells I Improvement District 541 P.2d 932 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
P.2d 331 (1960); Phoenix Title & P.2d 532 (1964).
State v. Church 504 P.2d 940 Ariz. 1973
State v. Church 504 P.2d 940 Ariz. 1973
See, , Phoenix Title & , State v. Casey, 10 Ariz.App.
In Re Maricopa County Appeal 489 P.2d 1238 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
In Re Maricopa County Appeal 489 P.2d 1238 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
245 P. 677 (1926); Phoenix Title &amp
Henningson, Durham & Richardson v. Prochnow 477 P.2d 285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Henningson, Durham & Richardson v. Prochnow 477 P.2d 285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Camerena v. Department of Public Welfare 449 P.2d 957 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Industrial Commission v. Harbor Insurance Company 449 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1968
Industrial Commission v. Harbor Insurance Company 449 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1968
State v. Edwards 446 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1968
State v. Edwards 446 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1968
Assuming, arguendo, that § 13-304 presents an ambiguity if not read in pari materia with § 13 — 303, it would be consistent with previous decisions of this Court to resolve the ambiguity by “[Attaching to the words used * * * that meaning of words which best harmonizes with the context.” Phoenix Title &amp
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
Our Supreme Court in Phoenix Title & , stated: “In determining the meaning of a statute, the cardinal rule is of course to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the legislature.
State v. Superior Court in and for County of Pima 420 P.2d 945 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
State v. Superior Court in and for County of Pima 420 P.2d 945 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
As to the problem before us, the application of ordinary rules of statutory construction, such as expressio unius est exclusio alterius, Phoenix Title & , makes it reasonably clear that the legislature specifically directed the three-times-a-year requirement at trial juries and has not imposed such a limitation upon grand jury service.
State v. Miller 413 P.2d 757 Ariz. 1966
State v. Miller 413 P.2d 757 Ariz. 1966
Phoenix Title & , ; , ; , .
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
Phoenix Title & , , , 80 A.L.R.2d 949 (1959).