Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Bilke v. State, 80 P.3d 269.

222 citing documents.

Walker v. U-Haul Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 11 (2003) (citation omitted).
Brenda D. v. Dep't of Child Safety 410 P.3d 419 Ariz. 2018
Brenda D. v. Dep't of Child Safety 410 P.3d 419 Ariz. 2018
¶ 11 (2003); ¶ 6 (2009) (“We construe rules of court using the same principles applicable to interpretation of statutes.”).
Francene Vincent v. Patrick Shanovich Ariz. 2017
Francene Vincent v. Patrick Shanovich Ariz. 2017
City of Phoenix v. Glenayre Electronics, Inc. 393 P.3d 919 Ariz. 2017
City of Phoenix v. Glenayre Electronics, Inc. 393 P.3d 919 Ariz. 2017
¶ 13, (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 517 (6th ed. 1990), stating ejusdem generis applies “where general words follow the enumeration of particular classes of things”).
Ciena Capital Funding, LLC v. Krieg's, Inc. 394 P.3d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
Ciena Capital Funding, LLC v. Krieg's, Inc. 394 P.3d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
163, 168 , , 20 (1976); ¶¶ 23, 26-28 , 275 (2003) (approving Cook and adding that Rule 64(b) certification sufficient to establish final determination of parties’ rights).
Brenda D. v. Department of Child Safety 393 P.3d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Brenda D. v. Department of Child Safety 393 P.3d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 11 , ¶ 7 , (the same rules of statutory construction apply in the interpretation of a procedural rule) (citing Devenir Assocs.
Heritage v. Weinberg Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Heritage v. Weinberg Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 18 (2003) (construing statutory predecessor to § 12- 2101(A)(6)); see also Brumett, 240 Ariz. at 429, ¶ 17 (compliance with Rule 54(b) or 54(c) is not required for a judgment to be appealable under § 12- 2101(A)(6)).
S.S., S.S. v. Stephanie H. 388 P.3d 569 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
S.S., S.S. v. Stephanie H. 388 P.3d 569 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
"If the language is clear, the court must 'apply it without resorting to other methods of statutory interpretation.'" ¶ 11 (2003) (quoting Hayes v. Cont'l Ins.
Ziegfield v. Ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Ziegfield v. Ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
If the statutory language is clear, we apply it “without resorting to other methods of statutory interpretation.” ¶ 11 (2003) (citation omitted).
Brumett v. MGA Home Healthcare, LLC 380 P.3d 659 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Zarco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Brumett v. MGA Home Healthcare, LLC 380 P.3d 659 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
466 ¶ 18, (noting statutory predecessor to AR.S.
State v. Zarco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 18 (2003) (noting statutory predecessor to A.R.S.
Schlussel v. Gerlach ex rel. County of Maricopa 375 P.3d 94 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Schlussel v. Gerlach ex rel. County of Maricopa 375 P.3d 94 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Ctr., , unless “the plain meaning would lead to impossible or absurd results,” ¶ 11
Kresock v. Gordon Ex Rel. County of Maricopa 370 P.3d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Kresock v. Gordon Ex Rel. County of Maricopa 370 P.3d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 8 (2014) (“’[T]he best and most reliable index of a statute’s meaning is its language and, when the language is clear and unequivocal, it is determinative of the statute’s construction.’”) ( ¶ 7 (2007)); ¶ 11 (2003) (“The court must give effect to each word of the statute.”); P.F.
siete/mesquite v. ador/mar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
siete/mesquite v. ador/mar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
To do so we first “’look to the language of the statute itself.’” ¶ 44 (2004) ( ¶ 11 (2003)).
State of Arizona v. Michael Anthony Salcido 362 P.3d 508 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
State of Arizona v. Michael Anthony Salcido 362 P.3d 508 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
“In determining the legislature’s intent, we initially look to the language of the statute itself.” STATE v. SALCIDO Opinion of the Court 271 (2003).
tempe/chavez v. state/brnovich 351 P.3d 367 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
tempe/chavez v. state/brnovich 351 P.3d 367 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Sorrell v. Gaarde-Morton 357 P.3d 828 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Sorrell v. Gaarde-Morton 357 P.3d 828 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Santana, 208 Ariz. at 303, ¶ 9 , 93 P.3d at 503 ( ¶ 11 , ).
Diana Glazer v. State of Arizona 347 P.3d 1141 Ariz. 2015
Diana Glazer v. State of Arizona 347 P.3d 1141 Ariz. 2015
464-65 ¶ 11, -72 (2003).
E.R. v. Department of Child Safety 344 P.3d 842 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
E.R. v. Department of Child Safety 344 P.3d 842 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 13 (2014); ¶ 11 (2003)
State v. Dewys Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Dewys Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Coulter 339 P.3d 653 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Coulter 339 P.3d 653 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶11, (quotations and citation omitted).
State of Arizona v. Anthony Lewis 340 P.3d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Anthony Lewis 340 P.3d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
“In determining the legislature’s intent, we initially look to the language of the statute itself.”
Dobson v. McClennen 337 P.3d 568 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Dobson v. McClennen 337 P.3d 568 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
464 ¶ 11, accord Cave Creek Unified Sch.
Spirlong v. Browne 336 P.3d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Spirlong v. Browne 336 P.3d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Co., ¶ 7, (–65, ¶ 11, –72 (2003)); see also A.R.S.
State v. Benson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Benson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
See, (courts do not interpret statutes to contain useless provisions unless 4 STATE v. BENSON Decision of the Court no other construction is possible); ¶ 11, (courts must give effect to each word of the statute).
State v. Randles 334 P.3d 730 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by