Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Deer Valley Unified School District No. 97 v. Houser, 152 P.3d 490.

175 citing documents.

James v. Peoria Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
No. 97 v. Houser, ¶ 1 (2007); ¶ 1 (App. 2013).
Claudia Duff v. Hon. lee/tucson Police 476 P.3d 315 Ariz. 2020
Claudia Duff v. Hon. lee/tucson Police 476 P.3d 315 Ariz. 2020
No. 97 v. Houser, ¶ 8 (2007)).
State v. Osborne Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Osborne Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
No. 97 v. Houser, ¶ 8 (2007)).
Humphrey v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Humphrey v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
No. 97 v. Houser, –97, ¶ 10 (2007) (holding that a notice of claim was invalid because its “qualifying language [made] it impossible to ascertain the precise amount” for which the public school could have settled the claim).
Chavez v. Roosevelt School Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Chavez v. Roosevelt School Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
No. 97 v. Houser, ¶ 6, (2007).
Jacobs v. Mihcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Jacobs v. Mihcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
No. 97 v. Houser, ¶ 6 (2007).
O'Harra v. Jones, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
O'Harra v. Jones, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
No. 97 v. Houser, ¶ 1 (2007); see also Simon v. Maricopa Med.
Ibeabuchi v. Penzone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Ibeabuchi v. Penzone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
No. 97 v. Houser, ¶ 9 (2007) (quoting A.R.S.
Pinal Cnty. v. Fuller 429 P.3d 570 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Pinal Cnty. v. Fuller 429 P.3d 570 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
No. 97 v. Houser , , ¶ 21, ; see also Falcon ex rel.
Donovan v. Yavapai Coll. Cmty. Coll. Dist. 423 P.3d 403 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Donovan v. Yavapai Coll. Cmty. Coll. Dist. 423 P.3d 403 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
No. 97 v. Houser , , 295, ¶ 6, , 492 (2007) ; see also A.R.S.
Yahweh v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Yahweh v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
No. 97 v. Houser, ¶ 9 (2007).
White Mountain Health Center, Inc. v. Maricopa County 386 P.3d 416 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
White Mountain Health Center, Inc. v. Maricopa County 386 P.3d 416 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
No. 97 v. Houser, ¶ 8 , (stating courts interpret statutes so no part will be redundant); County of Cochise, 221 Ariz. at 622, ¶ 9 , (“[E]ach word or phrase of a statute must be given meaning so that no part is rendered void, superfluous, contradictory or insignificant.”) (citation omitted).
Brumett v. MGA Home Healthcare, LLC 380 P.3d 659 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Zarco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Brumett v. MGA Home Healthcare, LLC 380 P.3d 659 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
No. 97 v. Houser, , ("Each word, phrase, clause and sentence [of a statute] must be given meaning so that no part will be void, inert, redundant, or trivial.”) (citation omitted).
State v. Zarco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
No. 97 v. Houser, (“Each word, phrase, clause and sentence [of a statute] must be given meaning so that no part will be void, inert, redundant, or trivial.”) (citation omitted).
State of Arizona Ex Rel. Polk v. Hon. campbell/francis Frederick Kraps 372 P.3d 929 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona Ex Rel. Polk v. Hon. campbell/francis Frederick Kraps 372 P.3d 929 Ariz. 2016
Caughlin v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Caughlin v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
No. 97 v. Houser, ¶ 1 (2007).
McCcd v. Hon talamante/arvizu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
McCcd v. Hon talamante/arvizu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
No. 97 v. Houser, ¶ 5, Ariz. Rev. Stat. (“A.R.S.”) § 12- 120.21(A)(4).3 Moreover, if the District is forced to conduct further discovery, go to trial, and appeal an erroneous ruling, the purpose of the notice of claims statute will
Kpnx v. Hon. stephens/state 340 P.3d 1075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
DBT Yuma, L.L.C. v. Yuma County Airport Authority 340 P.3d 1080 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
DBT Yuma, L.L.C. v. Yuma County Airport Authority 340 P.3d 1080 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
No. 97 v. Houser, ¶ 8, ).
Kpnx v. Hon. stephens/state 340 P.3d 1075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
STEPHENS/STATE Opinion of the Court ¶ 8, ).
City of Phoenix v. Elgin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
City of Phoenix v. Elgin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
No. 97 v. Houser, ¶ 6, –52, –17 (App. 1996).
Wilks v. Manobianco 330 P.3d 1003 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Wilks v. Manobianco 330 P.3d 1003 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
No. 97 v. Houser, ¶ 8 , (cornerstone of statutory construction is rule that language is best and most reliable index of statute’s meaning).
Midtown v. Farmers 334 P.3d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Midtown v. Farmers 334 P.3d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
No. 97 v. Houser, ¶ 8 , (noting that we look to the plain language of the statute to determine its meaning).
Glazer v. State 321 P.3d 470 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Glazer v. State 321 P.3d 470 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Tri City v. Grady Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Tri City v. Grady Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Louis John Felix 317 P.3d 1185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Louis John Felix 317 P.3d 1185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Drew v. Prescott Unified School District 314 P.3d 1277 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013