Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Diana Glazer v. State of Arizona, 347 P.3d 1141.

130 citing documents.

Robin Silver v. Pueblo Del Sol Water Co 423 P.3d 348 Ariz. 2018
Robin Silver v. Pueblo Del Sol Water Co 423 P.3d 348 Ariz. 2018
Accordingly, if a statutorily authorized regulation is unambiguous, “we apply it without further analysis.” ¶ 12 (2015).
State v. Hon. brain/hu 422 P.3d 1065 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Hon. brain/hu 422 P.3d 1065 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
If we conclude the statutes are reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation, “we consider other factors, including ‘the context of the statute, the language used, the subject matter, its historical background, its effects and consequences, and its spirit and purpose.’” ¶ 12 (2015) ().
Griffin Foundation v. Azsrs 422 P.3d 1048 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Griffin Foundation v. Azsrs 422 P.3d 1048 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Sys., ¶ 10 (2017) (“‘If the statute is subject to only one reasonable interpretation, we apply it without further analysis.’” ( GRIFFIN FOUNDATION v. AZSRS Opinion of the Court 163 ¶ 12 (2015))).
Webb v. Farm Bureau Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Webb v. Farm Bureau Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
rasor/miller v. Northwest Hospital LLC Ariz. 2017
rasor/miller v. Northwest Hospital LLC Ariz. 2017
Mary wade/marla Paddock v. asrs/asrs Board 390 P.3d 799 Ariz. 2017
Hawkins v. Secura Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Mary wade/marla Paddock v. asrs/asrs Board 390 P.3d 799 Ariz. 2017
Hawkins v. Secura Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶¶ 28-29 (2015); Desert Mountain Properties Ltd. P’ship v. Liberty Mut.
Orosco v. McShcd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Orosco v. McShcd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Webster v. Windsong Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Webster v. Windsong Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 29 (2015); A Tumbling-T Ranches v. Flood Control Dist.
Hogue v. City of Phoenix 378 P.3d 720 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Hogue v. City of Phoenix 378 P.3d 720 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
We narrowly construe immunity provisions applicable to government entities, ¶ 12, but may not construe an immunity provision so narrowly that the legislature’s grant of immunity is abrogated, ¶ 16
State v. Montgomery Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Montgomery Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 19 (App. 2013); ¶ 28 (App. 2014), vacated in part on other grounds, ¶ 36 (2015).
State of Arizona v. Kyle Andrew Stoll 370 P.3d 1130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Kyle Andrew Stoll 370 P.3d 1130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Randall v. Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Randall v. Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Only if the statute is ambiguous will we examine “the context of the statute, the language used, the subject matter, its historical background, its effects and consequences, and its spirit and purpose.” ¶ 12, (citation omitted).
Wilks Et Vir v. Manobianco 352 P.3d 912 Ariz. 2015
Fleming v. State Department of Public Safety 352 P.3d 446 Ariz. 2015
Fleming v. State Department of Public Safety 352 P.3d 446 Ariz. 2015
Wilks Et Vir v. Manobianco 352 P.3d 912 Ariz. 2015