Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Kilpatrick v. Superior Court, 466 P.2d 18.

154 citing documents.

Cota v. Industrial Indemnity Co. 687 P.2d 1281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Cota v. Industrial Indemnity Co. 687 P.2d 1281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Travelers Insurance v. Breese 675 P.2d 1327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Travelers Insurance v. Breese 675 P.2d 1327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Furthermore, Travelers’ , for the proposition that the court should apply equitable subrogation to the instant case is misplaced.
Cooner v. Board of Education 663 P.2d 1002 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Cooner v. Board of Education 663 P.2d 1002 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Kenneth A. Vinall, D.D.S., P.C. v. Hoffman 651 P.2d 859 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Kenneth A. Vinall, D.D.S., P.C. v. Hoffman 651 P.2d 859 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Amphitheater Unified School District 10 v. Harte 624 P.2d 1281 Ariz. 1981
Amphitheater Unified School District 10 v. Harte 624 P.2d 1281 Ariz. 1981
Bowslaugh v. Bowslaugh 617 P.2d 25 Ariz. 1979
Bowslaugh v. Bowslaugh 617 P.2d 25 Ariz. 1979
State v. SUPERIOR CT. IN AND FOR CTY. OF PIMA 585 P.2d 882 Ariz. 1978
State v. SUPERIOR CT. IN AND FOR CTY. OF PIMA 585 P.2d 882 Ariz. 1978
1028 , 10 L.Ed.2d 93 (1963)
Dairyland Insurance v. Beekman 576 P.2d 153 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Dairyland Insurance v. Beekman 576 P.2d 153 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
used in reference to statutory construction, is equally applicable to the construction of contracts, including insurance policies, as follows: ‘There is no magic in [contract] construction and no legal legerdemain should be used to change the meaning of simple English words so that the resulting
Mardian Construction Co. v. Superior Court 557 P.2d 526 Ariz. 1976
Mardian Construction Co. v. Superior Court 557 P.2d 526 Ariz. 1976
Greyhound Parks of Arizona
Schmitz v. Industrial Commission 549 P.2d 184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Schmitz v. Industrial Commission 549 P.2d 184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Padilla v. Industrial Commission 546 P.2d 1135 Ariz. 1976
Padilla v. Industrial Commission 546 P.2d 1135 Ariz. 1976
All Star Coach, Inc. v. Industrial Commission 545 P.2d 965 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Members of the Board of Education of the Pearce Union High School District v. Leslie 543 P.2d 775 Ariz. 1975
Members of the Board of Education of the Pearce Union High School District v. Leslie 543 P.2d 775 Ariz. 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
Valley National Bank v. Educational Credit Bureau, Inc. 531 P.2d 193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Valley National Bank v. Educational Credit Bureau, Inc. 531 P.2d 193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Parise v. Industrial Commission, 16 Ariz.App.
Desert Steel Co. v. SUPERIOR CT., CTY. OF MARICOPA 526 P.2d 1077 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Desert Steel Co. v. SUPERIOR CT., CTY. OF MARICOPA 526 P.2d 1077 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Acme argues, , that because the plaintiff Gerald Estabrook answered a written interrogatory raising the possibility that Reppel and the petitioner were its agents, that it would have the right, as principal, to sue the agents for indemnity for all sums paid as a result of their negligence.
Hanson's Water Works Supply Co. v. Driggs 514 P.2d 262 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Hanson's Water Works Supply Co. v. Driggs 514 P.2d 262 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State ex rel. Nelson v. Yuma County Board of Supervisors 511 P.2d 630 Ariz. 1973
Board of Trustees of Mary E. Dill School District No. 51 v. Board of Education of Sahuarita High … 506 P.2d 1108 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Board of Trustees of Mary E. Dill School District No. 51 v. Board of Education of Sahuarita High … 506 P.2d 1108 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
the court stated: “There is no magic in statutory construction and no legal legerdemain should be used to change the meaning of simple English words so that the result *325 ing interpretation conforms the statute to the sociological and.
Halenar v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN & FOR CTY. OF MARICOPA 504 P.2d 928 Ariz. 1972
Halenar v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN & FOR CTY. OF MARICOPA 504 P.2d 928 Ariz. 1972
in which we held that an employee had a right of action against a fellow employee for injuries incurred in the course of his employment.
Heard v. Farmers Insurance Exchange Company 496 P.2d 619 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Heard v. Farmers Insurance Exchange Company 496 P.2d 619 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
used in reference to statutory construction, is equally applicable to the construction of contracts, including insurance policies, as follows: “There is no magic in [contract] construction and no legal legerdemain should be used to change the meaning of simple English words so that the resulting
Smith v. Superior Court, Pima County 495 P.2d 519 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Smith v. Superior Court, Pima County 495 P.2d 519 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
aptly describes the judicial function in construing statutes: “There is no magic in statutory construction and no legal legerdemain should be used to change the meaning of simple English words so that the resulting interpretation conforms the statute to the sociological and economic views of judge
Ruth v. Industrial Commission 490 P.2d 828 Ariz. 1971
Ruth v. Industrial Commission 490 P.2d 828 Ariz. 1971
Moreover, , this Court interpreted the Workman's Compensation Act as constitutionally requiring suits by one employee against another employee relying upon precisely the same reasoning as used in Moseley.
Southwest Cooperative Wholesale v. Superior Court 477 P.2d 572 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Southwest Cooperative Wholesale v. Superior Court 477 P.2d 572 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Heimke v. Munoz 470 P.2d 107 Ariz. 1970
Heimke v. Munoz 470 P.2d 107 Ariz. 1970
Morari v. Atlantic Mutual Fire Insurance Company 468 P.2d 564 Ariz. 1970
Morari v. Atlantic Mutual Fire Insurance Company 468 P.2d 564 Ariz. 1970
The unloading was not a cause * * We accept Morari’s premise that exclusionary clauses are narrowly construed against the insurer but reject the attempted application to this case, observing that while rules of construction are applied where there is doubt or ambiguity, plain language requires no construction, Kilpatrick v. Superior Court (Rozar), , , filed February 27, 1970.