Cited by

Owners’ Ass’n, ¶ 12 (2004).

Owners’ Ass’n, ¶ 12 (2004).

Owners Ass’n, (quoting In re Thelen’s Estate, -61 (1969)).

Owners’ Ass’n, ¶ 12 (2004).

Owners’ Ass’n, ¶ 12 (2004) (quoting In re Thelen’s Estate, –61 (1969)).

Owners’ Ass’n, –24, ¶ 21 (2004) (citations omitted).

Owners’ Ass’n, ¶ 12 (2004) (citation omitted).

Pleak v. Entrada Property Owners’ Ass’n, ¶ 8 (2004) (citing Restatement (Third) of Prop.: Servitudes § 2.18(1) (2000)).

Owners’ Ass’n, ¶ 9 (2004).

Owners’ Ass’n, ¶ 12 (2004) (noting the rule of construction that statutes are generally to be interpreted with “every intendment in favor of consistency with the common law”) (citation omitted).

Owners’ Ass’n, ¶ 12, (“[I]f the common law is to be changed or abrogated by statute, the legislature must do so expressly or by necessary implication.”); Tucson Gas & Elec.

Thus, the statutes in effect in 1926 granted Ass’n, ¶ 8, (under common law, landowner may dedicate land for a proper public use; effect of common law dedication is that the public acquires an easement to use the property for the specified purpose while the fee remains with the dedicator); Allied Am.

Owners’ Ass’n, -21 (2004).

Owners’ Ass’n, ¶ 12 (2004) (citations omitted).

Owners’ Ass’n, ¶ 12, (holding that to change or abrogate common law by statute, legislature must do so expressly, and “[a]bsent a clear manifestation of legislative intent to abrogate the common law, we interpret statutes with ‘every intendment in favor of consistency with the common law.’”) (citation omitted).

§ 1-201 (2002); see also Pleak v. Entrada Property Owners’ Ass’n, , 422, ¶ 12, , 835 (2004) (“Absent a clear manifestation of legislative intent to abrogate the common law, we interpret statutes with ‘every intendment in favor of consistency with the common law.’ ” (quoting In re Thelen’s Estate, 9 Ariz.App.

Owners’ Ass’n, ¶ 12, (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

Owners’ Ass’n, , 422, ¶ 12, , 835 (2004).

Owners’ Ass’n, ¶ 12, (“Absent a clear manifestation of legislative intent to abrogate the common law, we interpret statutes with every intendment in favor of consistency with the common law.”) (quotation omitted).

Owners’ Ass’n, -24 ¶ 21, -37 (2004) (citing Allied Am.

Owners’ Ass’n, , 420-21, ¶¶ 6, 8, , 833-34 (2004).

Owners' Ass'n, , 422, ¶ 12, , 835 (2004); A.R.S.

Owners’ Ass’n, , ¶ 8, , 834 (2004) (citations omitted).

Owners’ Ass’n, , 422, ¶ 12, , 835 (2004) (explaining that the legislature must “expressly or by necessary implication” act when abrogating the common law).

Owners’ Ass’n, (argument not asserted to trial court in motion for summary judgment waived on appeal), aff’d, P.3d 831 (2004).

Owners’ Ass’n, , 422 ¶ 12, , 835 (2004).

As discussed, the express language of § 12-541(3) applying its terms to oral employment contracts, a species of 4 Redhair relies on Pleak v. Entrada Property Owners’ Ass’n, aff’d, P.3d 831 (2004), for the proposition that we can “limit the scope of an otherwise unambiguous statute.” However, the Pleak court simply stated we could so limit a statute “to conform to the statutory scheme in which the statute is found.” Id.

Pleak v. Entrada Property Owners’ Ass’n, , 421, ¶ 8, , 834 (2004) (citing Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes (“Restatement”) § 2.18(1) (2000)).

And, although title and section headings of statutes are not law, we may look to them for guidance.” Pleak v. Entrada Property Owners’ Ass’n, (citations omitted), aff’d, P.3d 831 (2004); cf. Moreno, ¶¶ 27-28, 139 P.3d at 617 (declining to apply definition of forgery in criminal code, A.R.S.

Owners’ Ass’n, (“[A]lthough title and section headings of statutes are not law, we may look to them for guidance.”), aff’d, P.3d 831 (2004); (construction of venue provisions “aided by a review of the article headings”).

Owners' Ass’n, ¶ 7 , affd

Owners’ Ass’n, , 422, ¶ 12, , 835 (2004) (“Absent a clear manifestation of legislative intent to abrogate the common law, we interpret statutes with ‘every intendment in favor of consistency with the common law.’ ”) (quoting In re Thelen’s Estate, 9 Ariz.App.

Owners’ Ass’n, , 422 ¶ 12, , 835 (2004) (citation omitted).

Owners’ Ass’n, ¶ 7 , aff’d

Owners’ Ass’n, ¶ 7 , aff’d