Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Allred, 425 P.2d 572.

40 citing documents.

Vande Krol v. superstition/benchmark Ariz. 2025
Vande Krol v. superstition/benchmark Ariz. 2025
(discussing § 1-211 and stating that “[a]ll other rules of statutory construction are secondary and are to be used only to aid in the proper application of [§ 1-211]”).
Carey v. Soucy 431 P.3d 1200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Carey v. Soucy 431 P.3d 1200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
P.2d 572 (1967); 3 J. G. Sutherland, Statutes and Statutory Construction Sec.
PAM TRANSPORT v. Freightliner Corp. 893 P.2d 1295 Ariz. 1995
PAM TRANSPORT v. Freightliner Corp. 893 P.2d 1295 Ariz. 1995
See, -04 , -74 (1967) (applying the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius ) 3 Here, subsection (E) provides that contribution is allowed if defendants are jointly and severally liable.
Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Superior Court 832 P.2d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Superior Court 832 P.2d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
(-04 , -74 (1967)) (statute’s express inclusion of subjects excludes all others not mentioned); 2A Sutherland Statutory Construction § 47.11, p. 165 (Singer 5th ed. 1992).
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
the court announced that the state is subject to garnishment only in the limited instance provided by statute: This Court held that the State is not subject to garnishment except as to the wages owed by it to its employees and officials [citing Grande v. Casson ].
State v. Ault 759 P.2d 1320 Ariz. 1988
State v. Ault 759 P.2d 1320 Ariz. 1988
Roller Village, Inc. v. Superior Court 741 P.2d 328 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Roller Village, Inc. v. Superior Court 741 P.2d 328 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
See Southwestern Iron and Steel Industries, , -06 , -74 (1967).
State v. SUPERIOR COURT, SANTA CRUZ CTY. 744 P.2d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
State v. SUPERIOR COURT, SANTA CRUZ CTY. 744 P.2d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Jackson v. Phoenixflight Productions, Inc. 700 P.2d 1342 Ariz. 1985
Jackson v. Phoenixflight Productions, Inc. 700 P.2d 1342 Ariz. 1985
Mervyn's, Inc. v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 697 P.2d 690 Ariz. 1985
Mervyn's, Inc. v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 697 P.2d 690 Ariz. 1985
Patrick v. Associated Drygoods Corp., 20 Ariz.App.
Terry v. Lincscott Hotel Corp. 617 P.2d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Terry v. Lincscott Hotel Corp. 617 P.2d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Building Products Co. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 604 P.2d 1148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Building Products Co. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 604 P.2d 1148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
v. Leslie, , , , Odle v. Shamrock Dairy of Phoenix, Inc., 7 Ariz.App., 515 , See, A.R.S.
DeSuno v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America 578 P.2d 634 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
DeSuno v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America 578 P.2d 634 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Patrick v. Associated Drygoods Corp. (Goldwater’s Div.), 20 Ariz.App.
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
v. Leslie, , , , Odle v. Shamrock Dairy of Phoenix, Inc., 7 Ariz.App.
Ordway v. Pickrell 543 P.2d 444 Ariz. 1975
Ordway v. Pickrell 543 P.2d 444 Ariz. 1975
ANDREW BROWN COMPANY v. Painters Warehouse, Inc. 531 P.2d 527 Ariz. 1975
ANDREW BROWN COMPANY v. Painters Warehouse, Inc. 531 P.2d 527 Ariz. 1975
San Fernando Motors, Inc. v. Fowler 498 P.2d 169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
San Fernando Motors, Inc. v. Fowler 498 P.2d 169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
City of Phoenix v. Collar, Williams & White Engineering, Inc. 472 P.2d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
City of Phoenix v. Collar, Williams & White Engineering, Inc. 472 P.2d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
In that respect, it was and is the City’s , affords it a complete defense.
Andrew Brown Company v. Painters Warehouse, Inc. 466 P.2d 790 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Andrew Brown Company v. Painters Warehouse, Inc. 466 P.2d 790 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
3 J. G. Sutherland, Statutes and Statutory Construction Sec.
State v. Zumwalt 439 P.2d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
State v. Zumwalt 439 P.2d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Technical words and phrases and those which have acquired a peculiar and appropriate meaning in the law shall be construed according to such peculiar and appropriate meaning.” , , at page 573 (1967) the court said: “Arizona Revised Statutes § 1-211 requires us to interpret statutes in the light of the legislative intenti This section further states that statutes ought to be liberally construed in order to ‘effect their objects and promote justice.’ All other rules of statutory