Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Estate of Winn v. Plaza Healthcare, Inc., 150 P.3d 236.

64 citing documents.

ruco/thaler v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
ruco/thaler v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
See Est. of Winn v. Plaza Healthcare, Inc., ¶ 16 (2007) (describing the rule of statutory construction that a more recent, specific statute will govern over a conflicting older, more general statute); ¶¶ 8, 11 (2014) (holding that when two statutes conflict, the more recent, specific statute governs over the older, more
Maricopa v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Maricopa v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State of Arizona v. Az Board of Regents Ariz. 2022
State of Arizona v. Az Board of Regents Ariz. 2022
“[W]hen there is conflict between two statutes, the more recent, specific statute governs over the older, more general statute.” ¶ 16 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting In re Guardianship/Conservatorship of Denton, ).
David Welch v. Cochise Board of Supervisors Ariz. 2021
David Welch v. Cochise Board of Supervisors Ariz. 2021
We therefore read each law’s enforcement provision “broadly to effectuate the legislature’s purpose in enacting them.” ¶ 5 (2007).
Monroe v. Az Acreage 443 P.3d 954 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Monroe v. Az Acreage 443 P.3d 954 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
“[W]hen there is conflict between two statutes, the more recent, specific statute governs over the older, more general statute.” ¶ 16 (2007) (internal quotation omitted).
Evitt-Thorne v. Hiatt (In re Evitt) 429 P.3d 1146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Evitt-Thorne v. Hiatt (In re Evitt) 429 P.3d 1146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
§ 14-1102(B)(3) ; see also In re Estateof Winn , , 153, ¶ 20, , 240 (2007) ; Barnett v. Hitching Post Lodge, Inc. , , 491, , 510 (1966).
Marika Delgado v. Manor Care of Tucson 395 P.3d 698 Ariz. 2017
Marika Delgado v. Manor Care of Tucson 395 P.3d 698 Ariz. 2017
§§ 46-455(B), - 455(O); ¶ 9 (2007) (APSA seeks to remedy the “evil” of abuse and neglect 5 MARIKA DELGADO, ET AL. V. MANOR CARE OF TUCSON, ET AL. Opinion of the Court of vulnerable adults, and to “protect some of society’s most vulnerable persons from abuse, neglect, and e
Kimberly McLaughlin v. Suzan McLaughlin 382 P.3d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Kimberly McLaughlin v. Suzan McLaughlin 382 P.3d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
“Our primary task in interpreting statutes is to give effect to the intent of the legislature.”
Ader v. Estate of Felger 375 P.3d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Ader v. Estate of Felger 375 P.3d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
EMILY ANN McGUIRE v. STATE OF ARIZONA Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
McGuire v. Lee ex rel. County of Pima 372 P.3d 328 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
McGuire v. Lee ex rel. County of Pima 372 P.3d 328 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
¶ 10 “ ‘Our primary task in interpreting statutes is to give effect to the intent of the legislature.’ ” Lee, , 340 P.3d at 1090
EMILY ANN McGUIRE v. STATE OF ARIZONA Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
5 McGUIRE v. LEE Opinion of the Court ¶10 “‘Our primary task in interpreting statutes is to give effect to the intent of the legislature.’” Lee, 340 P.3d at 1090
Newman v. Select Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Newman v. Select Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 9 (2007) (noting the policy underlying APSA is to protect some of society’s most vulnerable persons from abuse, neglect, and exploitation); Denton v. Maricopa Cnty.
State of Arizona v. Lee L.N. 340 P.3d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Lee L.N. 340 P.3d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
¶16 “Our primary task in interpreting statutes is to give effect to the intent of the legislature.”
Lewis v. Debord and Nelson-Debord 335 P.3d 1136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Lewis v. Debord and Nelson-Debord 335 P.3d 1136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
¶6 “Our primary task in interpreting statutes is to give effect to the intent of the legislature.”
Wyatt Ex Rel. Estate of Wyatt v. Vanguard Health Systems, Inc. 329 P.3d 1040 Ariz. 2014
Wyatt Ex Rel. Estate of Wyatt v. Vanguard Health Systems, Inc. 329 P.3d 1040 Ariz. 2014
Hannosh v. Segal 328 P.3d 1049 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Hannosh v. Segal 328 P.3d 1049 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Id.; ¶ 8, (noting that our primary goal when construing a statute is to effectuate the intent of the legislature).
In Re Indenture of Trust Dated January 13, 1964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Weinstein v. Weinstein 326 P.3d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
In Re Indenture of Trust Dated January 13, 1964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Weinstein v. Weinstein 326 P.3d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
The ESTATE OF JOSEFA U. DeCAMACHO v. LA SOLANA CARE AND REHAB, INC. 316 P.3d 607 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
The ESTATE OF JOSEFA U. DeCAMACHO v. LA SOLANA CARE AND REHAB, INC. 316 P.3d 607 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
The cause of action thus continues as an “estate asset.”
Wyatt v. Vanguard Health System, Inc. 307 P.3d 73 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Wyatt v. Vanguard Health System, Inc. 307 P.3d 73 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Estate of braden/gabaldon v. State 266 P.3d 349 Ariz. 2011
Estate of braden/gabaldon v. State 266 P.3d 349 Ariz. 2011
C. ¶8 Our goal “in interpreting statutes is to give effect to the intent of the legislature.” , 151 ¶ 8
Buehler v. RETZER EX REL. INDUS. COM'N 260 P.3d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Buehler v. RETZER EX REL. INDUS. COM'N 260 P.3d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
"To ascertain intent, we examine the words of the statutes at issue, `the polic[ies] behind the statute[s] and the evil[s] [that they were] designed to remedy.'" ¶ 8 , (quoting Calvert v. Farmers Ins.
Ballesteros v. American Standard Insurance 248 P.3d 193 Ariz. 2011
Ballesteros v. American Standard Insurance 248 P.3d 193 Ariz. 2011
Sec., ¶ 14, attempting “to give effect to the intent of the legislature,” ¶ 8
Estate of Braden Ex Rel. Gabaldon v. State 238 P.3d 1265 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Estate of Braden Ex Rel. Gabaldon v. State 238 P.3d 1265 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
¶ 5 , (holding that courts shall construe section 46-455, a remedial statute, “broadly to effectuate the legislature’s purpose in enacting” it); Ariz. Civil Rights Div., Dep’t , (“A remedial statute is entitled t
Progressive Casualty Insurance v. Estate of Palomera-Ruiz 231 P.3d 384 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Progressive Casualty Insurance v. Estate of Palomera-Ruiz 231 P.3d 384 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Although the goal of statutory interpretation is to determine legislative intent, ¶ 8 , we do so by following the “cornerstone” principle that the “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.” , 808 P.2d