Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Backus v. State, 203 P.3d 499.

69 citing documents.

Adams v. COM'N ON APPELLATE CT. APPOINTMENTS 254 P.3d 367 Ariz. 2011
See Phelps v. Firebird Raceway, Inc., -08 ¶¶ 18- 19, -08 (2005) (finding broadly worded constitutional provision did not support narrow construction); ¶ 22, (declining to engraft term not included in statute).
Turner v. City of Flagstaff 247 P.3d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Turner v. City of Flagstaff 247 P.3d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
¶ 13 , for the proposition that a notice of claim need not be scrupulously precise.
ARIZONA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION v. Brewer 243 P.3d 619 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
ARIZONA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION v. Brewer 243 P.3d 619 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
¶ 22 , (refusing to read into statute term not included by legislature).
Dos Picos Land Ltd. Partnership v. Pima County 240 P.3d 853 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Dos Picos Land Ltd. Partnership v. Pima County 240 P.3d 853 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
See Arpaio v. Citizen Publ’g Co., , (statutory language controls if plain and unambiguous); , (refusing to read into statute term not included by legislature).
Simon v. MARICOPA MEDICAL CENTER 234 P.3d 623 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Simon v. MARICOPA MEDICAL CENTER 234 P.3d 623 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Estate of DeSela v. Prescott Unified School District No. 1 228 P.3d 938 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Estate of DeSela v. Prescott Unified School District No. 1 228 P.3d 938 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
¶ 10 , (citations omitted) (purpose of notice of claim statute is to permit public entities and employees to investigate basis for, consider settling and budgeting claims).
Arizona City Sanitary Dist. v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Arizona City Sanitary Dist. v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
(had legislature intended additional qualifier to terms of statute, “it would have said so”).
State v. Hardesty 214 P.3d 1004 Ariz. 2009
State v. Hardesty 214 P.3d 1004 Ariz. 2009
Beynon v. TREZZA 211 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Beynon v. TREZZA 211 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
¶ 13 Without retreating from Deer Valley, our supreme court recently held “a claimant complies with the supporting-facts requirement of § 12-821.01.A by providing the factual foundation that the claimant regards as adequate to permit the public entity to evaluate the specific amount claimed.”
DeVries v. State 211 P.3d 1185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
DeVries v. State 211 P.3d 1185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
¶ 9 , (reiterating standard that liability is the rule and immunity is the exception).