Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite In Re Thomas R., 248 P.3d 193.

21 citing documents.

Marika Delgado v. Manor Care of Tucson 395 P.3d 698 Ariz. 2017
Co. of Wis., , 349 ¶ 17, (stating “[i]f the legislature desires to add [] a requirement [to A.R.S.
Tanya K. v. Department of Child Safety 377 P.3d 351 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Co. of Wisconsin, -50, ¶ 20 , -98 (2011) (court may rely on non-legislator’s statements if circumstances provide sufficient guarantees that the statements reflect legislative intent).
Murray v. Farmers Insurance Company of Arizona .... 366 P.3d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Hague v. Bill Houston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Co. of Wis., ¶ 22, (rejecting imposing a comprehension requirement onto § 20-259.01, despite its “remedial” nature).
Wilks Et Vir v. Manobianco 352 P.3d 912 Ariz. 2015
Katelin Newman v. Cornerstone National Insurance Company Dba Freedom National Insurance Services 344 P.3d 337 Ariz. 2015
Katelin Newman v. Cornerstone National Insurance Company Dba Freedom National Insurance Services Ariz. 2015
CSA 13-101 Loop, LLC v. Loop 101, LLC 341 P.3d 452 Ariz. 2014
Co. of Wis., ¶ 15, (declining to construe an insurance statute to require a Spanish language form where other statutes explicitly require it).
Orca Communications v. Ann Noder Et vir/pitch Public 337 P.3d 545 Ariz. 2014
Wilks v. Manobianco 330 P.3d 1003 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Co. of Wis., ¶ 7 , (summary judgment and interpretation of statute reviewed de novo), we agree with the Wilkses.
Newman v. Cornerstone National Insurance 322 P.3d 194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Kobold v. Aetna Life Insurance 309 P.3d 924 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Co. of Wis., ¶ 7 , (summary judgment and statutory interpretation are reviewed de novo); State Farm Mut.
Hawk v. PC Village Ass'n 309 P.3d 918 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Co. of Wis., ¶ 7 , Bertleson v. Sacks Tierney, P.A, ¶ 6
Distinguished Melendez v. Hallmark Insurance 305 P.3d 392 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
§ 12-259.01 enunciated in Tallent, 185 Ariz. at 267-68 , 915 P.2d at 666-67 , -49, ¶¶ 13-14 , -97 (2011), the form here does not constitute an offer of UM/UIM coverage.
Escamilla v. cuello/cabrera 282 P.3d 403 Ariz. 2012
Co. of Wis., 226 Ariz. 345, 347 ¶ 7
FL Receivables Trust 2002-A v. Arizona Mills, L.L.C. 281 P.3d 1028 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Co. of Wis., ¶ 17 , (court must not rewrite statute); Rotolo v. San Jose Sports and Entm’t, LLC, 151 Cal.App.4th 307 , 59 Cal.Rptr.3d 770, 782 (2007) (rule of judicial restraint disallows court to “fill a void” in statutes, especially where legislature’s provisions are comprehensive and detailed)), vacated in part by State of
American Family Mutual Insurance v. Sharp 277 P.3d 192 Ariz. 2012
Co., ¶ 7, Hayes v. Cont’l Ins.
State of Arizona v. Aaron Raymond Fikes 267 P.3d 1181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Co. of Wisc., -98 (2011), quoting Hayes v. Cont’l Ins.
Blevins v. Government Employees Insurance 258 P.3d 274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Buehler v. RETZER EX REL. INDUS. COM'N 260 P.3d 1085 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Co. of Wis., ¶ 7 , (citation omitted).
State v. Garcia 258 P.3d 195 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Co., ¶ 17 , (“[I]t is not our place to rewrite the statute.”).