Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Parrot v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 130 P.3d 530.

34 citing documents.

SIMMS v. ARIZONA RACING COMMISSION Ariz. 2026
The primary aim of statutory interpretation is “to give effect to legislative intent.” Premier Physicians Grp., ¶ 9 (2016) ( ¶ 7 (2013)).
State of Arizona v. hon.gordon/owen Ariz. 2025
State of Arizona v. hon.gordon/owen Ariz. 2025
Corp., ¶ 5 (2007) (“A statute’s plain language is the best indicator of legislative intent, and we will not ‘engage in other means of statutory interpretation’ unless a statute is ambiguous.” ( ¶ 7 (2006))); see also State ex rel.
Anthony Garcia v. Hon. butler/state 487 P.3d 256 Ariz. 2021
Anthony Garcia v. Hon. butler/state 487 P.3d 256 Ariz. 2021
When interpreting a statute, we aim “to give effect to the legislature’s intent.” See Premier Physicians Grp., ¶ 9 (2016) ( ¶ 7 (2006)).
State v. Az Regents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Az Regents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 19 (2006) ("We presume that Congress uses terms consistently.").
State v. Hon. gates/apolinar Altamirano 410 P.3d 433 Ariz. 2018
State v. Hon. gates/apolinar Altamirano 410 P.3d 433 Ariz. 2018
Tiffany Taylor v. Thomas Pandola Ariz. 2018
Tiffany Taylor v. Thomas Pandola Ariz. 2018
Premier Physicians Group, PLLC v. Navarro 377 P.3d 988 Ariz. 2016
Premier Physicians Group, PLLC v. Navarro 377 P.3d 988 Ariz. 2016
¶9 We interpret statutes “to give effect to the legislature’s intent.” ¶ 7
State of Arizona Ex Rel. Montgomery v. Hrach Shilgevorkyan 322 P.3d 160 Ariz. 2014
State of Arizona Ex Rel. Montgomery v. Hrach Shilgevorkyan 322 P.3d 160 Ariz. 2014
257 ¶ 7, , (“We fail to see how section [28-1381(A)(3) ] is ambiguous in any way.
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
―A statute is clear and unambiguous when it admits of only one meaning.‖
Jones v. Paniagua 212 P.3d 133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Jones v. Paniagua 212 P.3d 133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Havasupai Tribe of the Havasupai Reservation v. Arizona Board of Regents 204 P.3d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Havasupai Tribe of the Havasupai Reservation v. Arizona Board of Regents 204 P.3d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Yollin v. City of Glendale 191 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Yollin v. City of Glendale 191 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Lee v. State 182 P.3d 1169 Ariz. 2008
Farris v. Advantage Capital Corp. 170 P.3d 250 Ariz. 2007
Farris v. Advantage Capital Corp. 170 P.3d 250 Ariz. 2007
¶5 We interpret statutes to “give effect to the legislature’s intent.” Parrot v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 212 Ariz. 255, 257, ¶ 7, (internal quotation omitted).
Center Bay Gardens, L.L.C. v. City of Tempe City Council 153 P.3d 374 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Center Bay Gardens, L.L.C. v. City of Tempe City Council 153 P.3d 374 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Cundiff v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 145 P.3d 638 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Cundiff v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 145 P.3d 638 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Mago v. Mercedes-Benz, U.S.A., Inc. 142 P.3d 712 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Mago v. Mercedes-Benz, U.S.A., Inc. 142 P.3d 712 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
¶ 1 , the supreme court vacated our memorandum decision previously filed in this case and remanded for reconsideration.
Johnson v. Earnhardt's Gilbert Dodge, Inc. 132 P.3d 825 Ariz. 2006
Johnson v. Earnhardt's Gilbert Dodge, Inc. 132 P.3d 825 Ariz. 2006
See Parrot v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., , Ariz. , ¶ 41, ¶ 16

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by