Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Industrial Commission v. Harbor Insurance Company, 449 P.2d 1.

29 citing documents.

Simms v. Simms 567 P.3d 92 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Simms v. Simms 567 P.3d 92 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Raby 65 P.3d 458 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Raby 65 P.3d 458 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Rice v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 901 P.2d 1242 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Rice v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 901 P.2d 1242 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State ex rel. Arizona Department of Revenue v. Magma Copper Co. 674 P.2d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State ex rel. Arizona Department of Revenue v. Magma Copper Co. 674 P.2d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
§ 42-1310(2)(a) to include “all substances which can be mined from the earth.” 9 , (the construction placed on a statute by the executive body which administers it, if acquiesced in for a long period of time, will not be disturbed unless said construction is manifestly erroneous).
Marlar v. State 666 P.2d 504 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Marlar v. State 666 P.2d 504 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Golder v. Department of Revenue, State Board of Tax Appeals 599 P.2d 216 Ariz. 1979
Golder v. Department of Revenue, State Board of Tax Appeals 599 P.2d 216 Ariz. 1979
stated: “We have held many times that the construction placed on a statute by the executive body which administers it, if acquiesced in for a long period of time, will not be disturbed unless such construction is manifestly erroneous.” 104 Ariz. at 76 , 449 P.2d at 4 .
Dearing v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 589 P.2d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Dearing v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 589 P.2d 446 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Courts find administrative interpretations influential where they reinforce their conclusions, , or where the statute is ambiguous and there is no clearer indication of legislative intent available.
State v. Galbraith 559 P.2d 1089 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Galbraith 559 P.2d 1089 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Morris v. Arizona Corporation Commission 539 P.2d 928 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Morris v. Arizona Corporation Commission 539 P.2d 928 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Padilla v. Industrial Commission 535 P.2d 634 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Padilla v. Industrial Commission 535 P.2d 634 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Mileham v. Arizona Board of Pardons and Paroles 520 P.2d 840 Ariz. 1974
Mileham v. Arizona Board of Pardons and Paroles 520 P.2d 840 Ariz. 1974
Lowry v. Tucson Diesel, Inc. 498 P.2d 160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Lowry v. Tucson Diesel, Inc. 498 P.2d 160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Co., , with special consideration being given to the evil which the statute was designed to remedy.
Beasley v. Industrial Commission 489 P.2d 57 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Alexander v. Deddens 472 P.2d 41 Ariz. 1970
Alexander v. Deddens 472 P.2d 41 Ariz. 1970
We have previously held that “ * * * when a particular statute is taken from the laws of another state the interpretation of that statute by the courts of that state is *173 ‘highly persuasive’ in our construction of the statute.”
State ex rel. Herman v. Electrical District No. 2 469 P.2d 114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
State ex rel. Herman v. Electrical District No. 2 469 P.2d 114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970