Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Kent K. v. Bobby M., 110 P.3d 1013.

1369 citing documents.

Kelly R. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 137 P.3d 973 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
¶ 24 , (stating parents possess fundamental liberty interest in care, custody and management of their children); Monica C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
State v. Arellano 143 P.3d 1015 Ariz. 2006
State v. Arellano 143 P.3d 1015 Ariz. 2006
When a statute is clear and unambiguous, we apply its plain language and need not engage in any other means of statutory interpretation.” ¶ 14
Bill Parrot v. Daimlerchrysler Corporation Ariz. 2006
Bill Parrot v. Daimlerchrysler Corporation Ariz. 2006
When a statute is clear and unambiguous, we apply its plain language” to find the legislature’s intent and do “not engage in other means of statutory interpretation.” - 3 - ¶ 14, (citing Aros v. Beneficial Ariz., Inc., 194 Ariz. 62, 66, ).
Parrot v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. 130 P.3d 530 Ariz. 2006
Parrot v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. 130 P.3d 530 Ariz. 2006
When a statute is clear and unambiguous, we apply its plain language” to find the legislature’s intent and do “not engage in other means of statutory interpretation.” ¶ 14 , (citing Aros v. Beneficial Ariz., Inc., , ).
Vales v. KINGS HILL CONDOMINIUM ASS'N 125 P.3d 381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Vales v. KINGS HILL CONDOMINIUM ASS'N 125 P.3d 381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
v. Ariz. Dep't of Revenue, ¶ 13 , (noting that statutory language should be interpreted in conjunction with other provisions of the statute); ¶ 14 , (explaining that when a statute is clear and unambiguous, courts apply its plain language and need not engage in any other means of statutory interpretation).
Jennifer G. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 123 P.3d 186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Jennifer G. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 123 P.3d 186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 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
“If ambiguity exists, however, we determine legislative intent by looking first to the text and context of the statute and then considering its historical background, effects and consequences, and its spirit and purpose.” ¶ 14
Monica C. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 118 P.3d 37 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Monica C. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 118 P.3d 37 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
¶ 16 “Parents possess a fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody, and management of their children.” ¶24
LINDA v. v. ARIZONA DEPT. OF ECONOMIC SEC. 117 P.3d 795 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
LINDA v. v. ARIZONA DEPT. OF ECONOMIC SEC. 117 P.3d 795 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
¶ 42 , (holding that best interest of child need only be proven by a preponderance of the evidence).
Steven K. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 113 P.3d 1240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Steven K. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 113 P.3d 1240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005