Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., 105 P.3d 1163.

132 citing documents.

Woodward v. Azcc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Woodward v. Azcc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., ¶ 71 (2005).
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle 379 P.3d 197 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle 379 P.3d 197 Ariz. 2016
See City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., , 552 ¶ 31, (“Whenever possible, we do not interpret statutes in such a manner as to render a clause superfluous.”).
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle Ariz. 2016
See City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., ¶ 31, (“Whenever possible, we do not interpret statutes in such a manner as to render a clause superfluous.”).
McCarthy Integrated System, LLC v. Evoqua Water Technologies, LLC 379 P.3d 263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
McCarthy Integrated System, LLC v. Evoqua Water Technologies, LLC 379 P.3d 263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., , 558 ¶ 67
Halt v. Gama 360 P.3d 148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Halt v. Gama 360 P.3d 148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., , 547-58 ¶ 11, -67 (2005).
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); ¶
Koss Corp. v. American Express Co. 309 P.3d 898 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Koss Corp. v. American Express Co. 309 P.3d 898 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor., Inc., ¶ 8 , -56, ¶ 7 , -67 (2012).
Marisol Metzler v. Bci Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Los Angeles 310 P.3d 9 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Marisol Metzler v. Bci Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Los Angeles 310 P.3d 9 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
We reasoned that the statutory right to interest was “procedural because it relates only to enforcement of the substantive right—just compensation.” Id.; see also City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., -67 (2005) (litigants have no vested rights in procedural enactments).
Cook v. Town of Pinetop-Lakeside 303 P.3d 67 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Cook v. Town of Pinetop-Lakeside 303 P.3d 67 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
City of Tucson v. Clear *175 Channel Outdoor, Inc., ¶ 8
Robbins v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 300 P.3d 556 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Robbins v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 300 P.3d 556 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
“We presume the legislature is aware of existing statutes when it enacts new statutes,” ¶ 11 , and we do not interpret statutes to contain “useless provisions” unless no other construction is possible, ¶ 34
Jackson v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Jackson v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
See City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., (in interpreting statutes, we look first to language of statute and give words used their plain meaning).
Bt Capital, LLC v. Td Service Co. 265 P.3d 370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Followed Bt Capital, LLC v. Td Service Co. 265 P.3d 370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., ¶ 8
Blevins v. Government Employees Insurance 258 P.3d 274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Blevins v. Government Employees Insurance 258 P.3d 274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., ¶ 8
In Re Marriage of Gibbs 258 P.3d 221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Gibbs v. Gibbs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
In Re Marriage of Gibbs 258 P.3d 221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc.
Gibbs v. Gibbs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc.
Villa De Jardines Ass'n v. Flagstar Bank, FSB 253 P.3d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Villa De Jardines Ass'n v. Flagstar Bank, FSB 253 P.3d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc.
STATE COMPENSATION FUND OF ARIZONA v. Fink 233 P.3d 1190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
STATE COMPENSATION FUND OF ARIZONA v. Fink 233 P.3d 1190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., ¶ 11
State of Arizona, Dept. of Economic Security v. Munoz, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona, Dept. of Economic Security v. Munoz, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc.
State v. Botkin 209 P.3d 137 Ariz. 2009
State v. Botkin 209 P.3d 137 Ariz. 2009
See City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., ¶ 31, (“Whenever possible, we do not interpret statutes in such a manner as to render a clause superfluous.”).
Jones v. Weston 212 P.3d 835 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Jones v. Weston 212 P.3d 835 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc.
Mayer Unified School District v. Winkleman 201 P.3d 523 Ariz. 2009
Mayer Unified School District v. Winkleman 201 P.3d 523 Ariz. 2009
§ 12-505(B) (2003); see also City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., ¶ 42
State of Arizona v. Alvin Edward Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Alvin Edward Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Comm’n, see also City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., -67 (2005); Aguilar, ¶¶ 25-27, 178 P.3d at 504.
DeVries v. State 198 P.3d 580 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
DeVries v. State 198 P.3d 580 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., -48, ¶ 11 , -67 (2005) (quoting Aranda v. Indus.
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
See City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., ¶ 31
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
See City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., ¶¶ 2-8 , -66 (2005) (describing some procedural history of dispute).