Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Unum Life Insurance Co. of America v. Craig, 26 P.3d 510.

87 citing documents.

Hounshell v. White 199 P.3d 636 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
¶¶ 28-29 , (providing that where “two conflicting statutes cannot operate contemporaneously” the more recent or more specific statute governs).
Rueschenberg v. Rueschenberg 196 P.3d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Rueschenberg v. Rueschenberg 196 P.3d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
¶ 28 , (citing Lewis v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. 181 P.3d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. 181 P.3d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Kimu P. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 178 P.3d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Kimu P. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 178 P.3d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Aguilar 178 P.3d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State v. Aguilar 178 P.3d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Sepahi, , 78 P.3d at 735 ; Taylor, , 148 P.3d at 87 (“the best evidence” of legislature’s intent “is the statutory language”).
Cundiff v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 174 P.3d 270 Ariz. 2008
Cundiff v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 174 P.3d 270 Ariz. 2008
Twin Peaks Construction, Inc. v. Weatherguard Metal Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Twin Peaks Construction, Inc. v. Weatherguard Metal Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
see also City of Mesa v. Killingsworth, 96 Ariz. 290, 294, (“Where the statute is unambiguous, the courts will only apply the language used and not interpret, for the statute speaks for itself.”).
State v. Ross 151 P.3d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Ross 151 P.3d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
-30, ¶ 11 , -13 (2001) (citing Mail Boxes etc., U.S.A.
Yarbrough v. Montoya-Paez 147 P.3d 755 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Yarbrough v. Montoya-Paez 147 P.3d 755 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
v. Craig, , (‘When two statutes appear to conflict, we will attempt to harmonize their language to give effect to each.”); Maricopa *9 , (same).
In Re Estate of Moore 97 P.3d 103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
In Re Estate of Moore 97 P.3d 103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
John C. Lincoln Hospital v. Maricopa County 96 P.3d 530 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
John C. Lincoln Hospital v. Maricopa County 96 P.3d 530 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
v. Craig, ¶ 11 , (“When two statutes appear to conflict, we will attempt to harmonize their language to give effect to each.”) (citation omitted); see also State ex rel.
North Valley Emergency, Specialists, L.L.C. v. Santana 93 P.3d 501 Ariz. 2004
North Valley Emergency, Specialists, L.L.C. v. Santana 93 P.3d 501 Ariz. 2004
May v. Ellis 92 P.3d 859 Ariz. 2004
May v. Ellis 92 P.3d 859 Ariz. 2004
In advancing that argument, P.3d 510 (2001).
Thomas and King, Inc. v. City of Phoenix 92 P.3d 429 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Thomas and King, Inc. v. City of Phoenix 92 P.3d 429 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
v. Craig, ¶ 11 , (“When two statutes appear to conflict, we will attempt to harmonize their language to give effect to each.”) (citation omitted).
Mullenaux v. Graham County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Mullenaux v. Graham County 82 P.3d 362 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Mullenaux v. Graham County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Mullenaux v. Graham County 82 P.3d 362 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
v. Craig, , , ¶ 11 *7 (2001).
Galati v. America West Airlines, Inc. 69 P.3d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Galati v. America West Airlines, Inc. 69 P.3d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Co. of Am., v. Craig, -30, ¶¶ 11-12 , -13 (2001)(“The primary aim of statutory construction is to find and give effect to legislative intent.”).
Higginbottom v. State 51 P.3d 972 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Higginbottom v. State 51 P.3d 972 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Hughes v. Jorgenson 50 P.3d 821 Ariz. 2002
Hughes v. Jorgenson 50 P.3d 821 Ariz. 2002
-30, ¶ 11, -13 (2001) (“The primary aim of statutory construction is to find and give effect to legislative intent.”).5 Generally, if a statute is clear, we simply “apply it without using other means of construction,” id.