Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite David Stambaugh v. Mark Killian, 398 P.3d 574.
- In Re Term of Parental Rights as to G.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
-
In Re Term of Parental Rights as to G.T.
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
“If the statute is subject to only one reasonable interpretation, we apply it without further analysis.” ¶ 7 (2017) (cleaned up).
- Cao v. Pfp Dorsey Ariz. 2024
- Cao v. Pfp Dorsey Ariz. 2024
- Costaras v. Costaras 546 P.3d 122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
- Costaras v. Costaras 546 P.3d 122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
- In Re: Steven R. Drummond, Mary A. Drummond 543 P.3d 1022 Ariz. 2024
-
In Re: Steven R. Drummond, Mary A. Drummond
543 P.3d 1022
Ariz. 2024
Additionally, “[i]n construing a specific provision, we look to the statute as a whole and we may also consider statutes that are in pari materia—of the same subject or general purpose—for guidance and to give effect to all of the provisions involved.” ¶ 7 (2017).
- Pnc Bank v. Hon coury/jennings 544 P.3d 88 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
- Pnc Bank v. Hon coury/jennings 544 P.3d 88 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
- Benetich v. Benetich, III Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
-
Benetich v. Benetich, III
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
¶ 7 (2017) (“In construing a specific provision, [this Court] look[s] to the statute as a whole[.]”).
- Avitia v. Crisis Preparation Ariz. 2023
- Avitia v. Crisis Preparation Ariz. 2023
- State v. Hon. Whitehead Gallegos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
-
State v. Hon. Whitehead Gallegos
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
§ 13-752’s legislative history and following the in pari materia doctrine to construe related statutory provisions together, ¶ 7 (2017), the supreme court’s holding in Lynch also abides by the general principle that new constitutional rules do not apply retroactively to cases that have become final.
- Chalmers v. East Valley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
-
Chalmers v. East Valley
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
If the statutory text presents “only one reasonable interpretation, we apply it without further analysis.” ¶ 7 (2017) (citation omitted).
- Dunn v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
- Dunn v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
- Kay Franklin v. Csaa General Insurance Ariz. 2023
- Kay Franklin v. Csaa General Insurance Ariz. 2023
- State v. Sorensen 531 P.3d 378 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
-
State v. Sorensen
531 P.3d 378
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
¶8 We determine a word’s meaning from its broader context, examining the entire statute and considering “statutes that are in pari materia—of the same subject or general purpose—for guidance and to give effect to all of the provisions involved.” ¶ 7 (2017).
- Hasse v. Avondale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
-
Hasse v. Avondale
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
“If the statute is subject to only one reasonable interpretation, we apply it without further analysis.” ¶ 7 (2017) (quoting Wade v. Ariz. State Ret.
- Southern Arizona Home Builders v. Town of Marana Ariz. 2023
-
Southern Arizona Home Builders v. Town of Marana
Ariz. 2023
“Words in statutes should be read in context in determining their meaning.” ¶ 7 (2017).
- Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc. v. Mark Brnovich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
- Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc. v. Mark Brnovich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
- State v. Stowe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
-
State v. Stowe
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
If the text presents “only one reasonable interpretation, we apply it without further analysis.” ¶ 7 (2017) (citation omitted).
- Unemployed Workers v. Ducey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
-
Unemployed Workers v. Ducey
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
“If the statute is subject to only one reasonable interpretation, we apply it without further analysis.” Stambaugh 3 UNEMPLOYED WORKERS v. DUCEY, ¶ 7 (2017) (quoting Wade v. Ariz. State Ret.
- 4qtkidz LLC v. Hnt Holdings llc/beth Ford 513 P.3d 1106 Ariz. 2022
-
4qtkidz LLC v. Hnt Holdings llc/beth Ford
513 P.3d 1106
Ariz. 2022
of Supervisors, ¶ 11 (2021) ( ¶ 7 (2017)).
- Kizzen James v. City of Peoria 513 P.3d 277 Ariz. 2022
-
Kizzen James v. City of Peoria
513 P.3d 277
Ariz. 2022
“If the statute is subject to only one reasonable interpretation, we apply it without further analysis.” ¶ 7 (2017) (quoting Wade v. Ariz. State Ret.
- McMichael-gombar v. Phoenix Civil Service Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
-
McMichael-gombar v. Phoenix Civil Service
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Piccioli, 249 Ariz. at 118, ¶ 15 ( ¶ 7 (2017)).
- State of Arizona v. Az Board of Regents Ariz. 2022
- State of Arizona v. Az Board of Regents Ariz. 2022
- Harold Vangilder v. ador/pinal County Ariz. 2022
-
Harold Vangilder v. ador/pinal County
Ariz. 2022
See Orbitz Worldwide, 247 Ariz. at 238 ¶ 10 (“In construing a specific provision, we look to the statute as a whole and we may also consider statutes that are in pari materia—of the same subject or general purpose—for guidance and to give effect to all of the provisions involved.” ( ¶ 7 (2017))).
- Timothy B. v. dcs/h.B. Ariz. 2022
- Timothy B. v. dcs/h.B. Ariz. 2022
- Kristi Lattin v. Shamrock Materials LLC Ariz. 2022
- Kristi Lattin v. Shamrock Materials LLC Ariz. 2022
- In Re: Todd McLauchlan 502 P.3d 975 Ariz. 2022
-
In Re: Todd McLauchlan
502 P.3d 975
Ariz. 2022
“Words in statutes should be read in context in determining their meaning.” ¶ 7 (2017).