Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite David Stambaugh v. Mark Killian, 398 P.3d 574.
- Sun City Home Owners Association v. Acc Ariz. 2021
-
Sun City Home Owners Association v. Acc
Ariz. 2021
Id.; ¶ 21 (2017) (noting that courts owe no deference to an agency’s interpretation of an unambiguous statute).
- David Welch v. Cochise Board of Supervisors Ariz. 2021
-
David Welch v. Cochise Board of Supervisors
Ariz. 2021
As ever, our aim in statutory interpretation is “to effectuate the legislature’s intent.” ¶ 7 (2017).
- Coleman v. Amon 498 P.3d 638 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
- Coleman v. Amon 498 P.3d 638 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
- Anthony Garcia v. Hon. butler/state 487 P.3d 256 Ariz. 2021
-
Anthony Garcia v. Hon. butler/state
487 P.3d 256
Ariz. 2021
¶ 7 (2017) (“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.”).
- Bates v. Bates Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
- Bates v. Bates Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
- Vhs v. Ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
-
Vhs v. Ador
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
We construe a statutory provision as a part of the whole statute and may find guidance in statutes that are “of the same subject or general purpose.” ¶ 7 (2017).
- State v. Emedi 484 P.3d 657 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
-
State v. Emedi
484 P.3d 657
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
(alteration in original) ( ¶ 7 (2017)).
- Greg Shepherd v. Costco Wholesale Corporation Ariz. 2021
-
Greg Shepherd v. Costco Wholesale Corporation
Ariz. 2021
In construing a specific provision, we may also consider similar statutes for guidance, ¶ 7 (2017), and 2 “Healthcare provider” is defined by A.R.S.
- State v. Knight Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
-
State v. Knight
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
lly, “[i]n construing a specific provision, we look to the statute as a whole and we may consider 3 STATE v. KNIGHT Decision of the Court 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).
- Mba v. Scottsdale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
-
Mba v. Scottsdale
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
C. The Administrator’s Interpretation is Consistent with Stipulation 12 MBA asserts the Administrator’s interpretation is inconsistent with “other provisions of the ordinance.” ¶ 7 (2017) (“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.”).
- State v. Furlong 473 P.3d 707 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
- Saguaro Healing LLC v. State of Arizona 470 P.3d 636 Ariz. 2020
-
State v. Furlong
473 P.3d 707
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Fund, ¶ 18 (App. 1999)); ¶ 7 (2017) (“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.” ( ¶ 9 (2016))).
-
Saguaro Healing LLC v. State of Arizona
470 P.3d 636
Ariz. 2020
§ 12- 910(E); ¶ 21 (2017).
- American Federation v. City of Phoenix Ariz. 2020
- Frank Piccioli v. City of Phoenix Ariz. 2020
-
Frank Piccioli v. City of Phoenix
Ariz. 2020
Sys., ¶ 14 (2017), unless the context suggests otherwise, ¶ 7 (2017).
-
American Federation v. City of Phoenix
Ariz. 2020
In doing so, we give words their ordinary meanings, see Wade, 241 Ariz. at 562 ¶ 14, unless the context suggests otherwise, ¶ 7 (2017).
- In Re: Mh 2019-004895 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
-
In Re: Mh 2019-004895
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
We review language in context and consider related statutes “for guidance and to give effect to all of the provisions involved.” ¶ 7 (2017).
- Maria Rosas v. ades/chicanos Por La Causa Inc Ariz. 2020
- Maria Rosas v. ades/chicanos Por La Causa Inc Ariz. 2020
- Carter Oil v. Ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
- Carter Oil v. Ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
- State v. Watson 459 P.3d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
-
State v. Watson
459 P.3d 120
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 7 (2017) (the primary goal of statutory interpretation “is to effectuate the legislature’s intent”); State ex rel.
- State v. Mendoza 455 P.3d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
-
State v. Mendoza
455 P.3d 705
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
In determining the plain meaning of a specific provision, we read its words in context and “look to the [rule] as a whole.” ¶ 7 (2017).
- Contreras Farms v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
-
Contreras Farms v. Phoenix
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
We first look to the plain language of the provision and read it in the context of the ordinance as a whole “for guidance and [to ensure we] give effect to all of the provisions involved.” ¶ 7 (2017).
- City of Phoenix v. Orbitz Worldwide Ariz. 2019
-
City of Phoenix v. Orbitz Worldwide
Ariz. 2019
“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).
- In Re Fredrick B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
- In Re Fredrick B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
- Gordon v. Arc 447 P.3d 327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
- Gordon v. Arc 447 P.3d 327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
- State v. Hernandez-Perez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
- State v. Hernandez-Perez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
- Ironwood Commons Cmty. Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Randall 439 P.3d 1193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
-
Ironwood Commons Cmty. Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Randall
439 P.3d 1193
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Stambaugh v. Killian , , 509, ¶ 7, , 575 (2017).