Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite City of Mesa v. Killingsworth, 394 P.2d 410.

193 citing documents.

Arizona State Tax Commission v. Reiser 512 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1973
Hence, in determining the meaning and intent of Arizona’s enactment, its historical background should be considered
Dewitt v. Magma Copper Company 492 P.2d 1243 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Dewitt v. Magma Copper Company 492 P.2d 1243 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
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
Lee v. Superior Court 472 P.2d 34 Ariz. 1970
Lee v. Superior Court 472 P.2d 34 Ariz. 1970
we said: “Nothing is more firmly settled than under ordinary circumstances, where there is involved no ambiguity, or absurdity, a statutory or constitutional provision requires no interpretation.” Again, , we said: “Where the statute is unambiguous the courts will apply only the language used, and not interpret, for the statute speaks for itself.” A.R.S.
Maricopa Cty. v. Cities & Towns of Avondale, Etc. 467 P.2d 949 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Maricopa Cty. v. Cities & Towns of Avondale, Etc. 467 P.2d 949 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Wiseman v. Arizona Highway Department Ex Rel. Campbell 464 P.2d 372 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Wiseman v. Arizona Highway Department Ex Rel. Campbell 464 P.2d 372 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Swift & Company v. State Tax Commission 462 P.2d 775 Ariz. 1969
Swift & Company v. State Tax Commission 462 P.2d 775 Ariz. 1969
this Court stated: “ * ' * * This Court has held, on numerous occasions, that while administrative interpretation is not binding where ■long continued and in cases of ambiguity we will acquiesce therein.
Campbell v. Superior Court, County of Maricopa 462 P.2d 801 Ariz. 1969
Campbell v. Superior Court, County of Maricopa 462 P.2d 801 Ariz. 1969
State v. Casey 460 P.2d 52 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
State v. Casey 460 P.2d 52 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Swift & Co. v. State Tax Commission 455 P.2d 459 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Swift & Co. v. State Tax Commission 455 P.2d 459 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Gustafson v. Riggs 456 P.2d 92 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Gustafson v. Riggs 456 P.2d 92 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
: “All rules for the interpretation of statutes have for their sole objective the discovery of legislative intent.” 96 Ariz. at 295 , 394 P.2d at 413 .
Camerena v. Department of Public Welfare 449 P.2d 957 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
State v. Edwards 446 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1968
State v. Edwards 446 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1968
State v. Stone 443 P.2d 933 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State v. Stone 443 P.2d 933 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
First National Bank v. Taylor 427 P.2d 556 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
First National Bank v. Taylor 427 P.2d 556 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
First National Bank of Arizona v. Taylor 426 P.2d 663 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
First National Bank of Arizona v. Taylor 426 P.2d 663 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Selective Life Insurance v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States 422 P.2d 710 Ariz. 1967
Selective Life Insurance v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States 422 P.2d 710 Ariz. 1967
Drachman v. Jay 417 P.2d 704 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Drachman v. Jay 417 P.2d 704 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Cyr & Evans Contracting Co. v. Graham 407 P.2d 385 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Cyr & Evans Contracting Co. v. Graham 407 P.2d 385 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Neil B. McGinnis Equipment Co. v. Henson 406 P.2d 409 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Neil B. McGinnis Equipment Co. v. Henson 406 P.2d 409 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
the Court stated on page 297 of the Arizona Reports, on page 414 of 394 P.2d: “The legislature has now clearly expressed its intention consistent with the construction which we believe should be placed on the former statutes.
Marquez v. Rapid Harvest Co. 405 P.2d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Rothweiler v. Superior Court of Pima County 402 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Rothweiler v. Superior Court of Pima County 402 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
[1964], The source of § 1191 of.
Police Pension Board of City of Phoenix v. Warren 398 P.2d 892 Ariz. 1965
Police Pension Board of City of Phoenix v. Warren 398 P.2d 892 Ariz. 1965
“an amendment which, in effect, construes and clarifies a prior statute will be accepted as the legislative declaration of the original act.” Since the record does not establish that appellee was ever commissioned or sworn as a peace officer, we feel compelled to observe that this legislative cla