Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite People's Choice TV Corp. v. City of Tucson, 46 P.3d 412.

60 citing documents.

Trap-Zap v. Facilitysource Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Trap-Zap v. Facilitysource Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
When interpreting a statute, our primary goal is to “discern and give effect to legislative intent.” People’s ¶ 7 (2002).
SK Builders, Inc. v. Smith 436 P.3d 519 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
SK Builders, Inc. v. Smith 436 P.3d 519 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
People's Choice TV Corp. v. City of Tucson , , ¶ 7
McKee v. State 388 P.3d 14 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
McKee v. State 388 P.3d 14 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“‘We construe the statute as a whole, and consider its context[.]’” People’s Choice TV Corp., ¶ 7 (2002) (quoting State ex 4 MCKEE v. STATE, et al. Opinion of the Court rel.
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 363 P.3d 136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 363 P.3d 136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
I. Legislative Intent ¶9 This Court’s primary goal in “interpreting a statute is to discern and give effect to legislative intent.” People’s ¶ 7 (2002).
Scottsdale/101 Associates, LLC v. Maricopa County 359 P.3d 1035 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Scottsdale/101 Associates, LLC v. Maricopa County 359 P.3d 1035 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
People’s ¶ 7, –53, (statutes establishing property tax liability—in contrast to those creating an exemption—are “most strongly construed against the government and in favor of the taxpayer”).
SPQR Venture, Inc. v. Robertson 349 P.3d 1107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
SPQR Venture, Inc. v. Robertson 349 P.3d 1107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Midfirst v. Barness Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Midfirst v. Barness Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Newman v. Cornerstone National Insurance 322 P.3d 194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Newman v. Cornerstone National Insurance 322 P.3d 194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Richard Anderson v. Valley Union High School District 22 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Richard Anderson v. Valley Union High School District 22 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
City of Peoria v. Brink's Home Security, Inc. 261 P.3d 473 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
City of Peoria v. Brink's Home Security, Inc. 261 P.3d 473 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
¶ 9 Guided by People’s , we disagree.
City of Peoria v. BRINK'S HOME SECURITY, INC. 247 P.3d 1002 Ariz. 2011
City of Peoria v. BRINK'S HOME SECURITY, INC. 247 P.3d 1002 Ariz. 2011
See People’s –04 ¶ 8, – 15 (2002) (noting the converse relationship between “intrastate” and “interstate”).
STATE EX REL. AZ. REG. OF CONT. v. Johnston 214 P.3d 441 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
STATE EX REL. AZ. REG. OF CONT. v. Johnston 214 P.3d 441 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
South West Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Central Arizona Water Conservation District 212 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
South West Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Central Arizona Water Conservation District 212 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
1 ¶ 14 Our main goal in construing this statute is to “discern and give effect to legislative intent.” ¶ 7
Excell Agent Services, L.L.C. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 209 P.3d 1052 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Excell Agent Services, L.L.C. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 209 P.3d 1052 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
¶ 17 Plaintiffs also rely on People’s
Duke Energy Arlington Valley, LLC v. Arizona Department of Revenue 193 P.3d 330 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Duke Energy Arlington Valley, LLC v. Arizona Department of Revenue 193 P.3d 330 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
People’s Choice TV Corp., , Wilderness World, Inc. v. Dep’t of Revenue
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Action Marine, Inc. 181 P.3d 188 Ariz. 2008
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Action Marine, Inc. 181 P.3d 188 Ariz. 2008
(quoting People’s ¶ 7 , ).
Southwest Airlines Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 175 P.3d 700 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Southwest Airlines Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 175 P.3d 700 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Our task is to “discern and give effect to legislative intent.” People’s ¶ 7
Sheehan v. Flower 170 P.3d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Sheehan v. Flower 170 P.3d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
See People’s Choice TV Corp., ¶ 8 , (“[W]e ‘look to statutes on the same subject matter to determine legislative intent and to maintain statutory harmony.’ ’’ ( ¶ 8 , )).
Stonecreek Bldg. Co., Inc. v. Shure 162 P.3d 675 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Stonecreek Bldg. Co., Inc. v. Shure 162 P.3d 675 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Stone-creek counters that the trial court correctly determined that “any items” refers to the items in the billing statement because the first sentence of subsection D expressly limits written objections to items “in the billing.” ¶ 13 When interpreting a statute, our primary goal is to “discern and give effect to legislative intent.” People’s ¶ 7
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Questar Southern Trails Pipeline Co. 161 P.3d 620 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Questar Southern Trails Pipeline Co. 161 P.3d 620 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
We strive to “discern and give effect to legislative intent.” People’s ¶ 7
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District 126 P.3d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District 126 P.3d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Jeter v. Mayo Clinic Arizona 121 P.3d 1256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Jeter v. Mayo Clinic Arizona 121 P.3d 1256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Arizona Department of Water Resources 118 P.3d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Arizona Department of Water Resources 118 P.3d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
When interpreting statutes, we strive to “discern and give effect to legislative intent.” People’s ¶ 7
STATE EX REL. DEPT. ECONOMIC SEC. v. Hayden 115 P.3d 116 Ariz. 2005
STATE EX REL. DEPT. ECONOMIC SEC. v. Hayden 115 P.3d 116 Ariz. 2005
Kent K. v. Bobby M. 110 P.3d 1013 Ariz. 2005
Kent K. v. Bobby M. 110 P.3d 1013 Ariz. 2005
See People’s Choice TV Corp., ¶ 7