Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite David Stambaugh v. Mark Killian, 398 P.3d 574.

190 citing documents.

City of Surprise v. acc/lake Pleasant 437 P.3d 865 Ariz. 2019
City of Surprise v. acc/lake Pleasant 437 P.3d 865 Ariz. 2019
Stambaugh v. Killian , , 509 ¶ 7, , 575 (2017).
Diaz v. Hon. bernini/state/tucson City Prosecutor 435 P.3d 457 Ariz. 2019
Diaz v. Hon. bernini/state/tucson City Prosecutor 435 P.3d 457 Ariz. 2019
State v. Gomez 437 P.3d 896 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Gomez 437 P.3d 896 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Jackson v. Eagle KMC L. L.C. 431 P.3d 1197 Ariz. 2019
Jackson v. Eagle KMC L. L.C. 431 P.3d 1197 Ariz. 2019
See § 23-904(A), (B) (stating that Arizona employees injured in this state or another state are “entitled to” Arizona workers’ compensation benefits); § 23-904(G) (discussing the set-offs and credits applied to workers’ compensation paid to an employee who receives benefits in both Arizona and another state ); ¶ 7 (2017) (stating we construe a subsection of a statute in the context of the entire statute).
Cook v. Grebe 429 P.3d 1161 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Cook v. Grebe 429 P.3d 1161 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Joseph v. v. McKay Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Joseph v. v. McKay Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
the interpretation of a constitutional or statutory provision or a rule adopted by an agency, without deference to any previous determination that may have been made on the question by the agency”); ¶ 25 (2017) (Bolick, J., concurring) (Arizona Supreme Court “has never expressly considered” whether Arizona courts would defer to agency interpretations as under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat.
Diana Glazer v. State of Arizona 423 P.3d 993 Ariz. 2018
Diana Glazer v. State of Arizona 423 P.3d 993 Ariz. 2018
¶ 7 (2017) (citation omitted); see also Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 341 (1997) (“The plainness or ambiguity of statutory language is determined by reference to the language itself, the specific context in which that language is used, and the broader context of the statute as a whole.”).
Becker v. Liu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Becker v. Liu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Jones 424 P.3d 447 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Jones 424 P.3d 447 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 7 (2017) ( ¶ 9 (2016); J.D.
Steinmetz v. Everyone Wins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Steinmetz v. Everyone Wins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
“Words in statutes should be read in context in determining their meaning.” ¶ 7 (2017).
Logan B. v. Dcs 422 P.3d 1072 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Bsi Holdings, LLC v. Ariz. Dep't of Transp. 417 P.3d 782 Ariz. 2018
Bsi Holdings, LLC v. Ariz. Dep't of Transp. 417 P.3d 782 Ariz. 2018
“Words in statutes should be read in context in determining their meaning.” ¶ 7 (2017).
Logan B. v. Dcs 422 P.3d 1072 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
“When the text is clear and unambiguous, we apply the plain meaning and our inquiry ends.” ¶ 7 (2017) ( ¶ 7 (2017)).
Cleckner v. Adhs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Cleckner v. Adhs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Butler Law v. Hon. higgins/winslow Memorial 410 P.3d 1223 Ariz. 2018
Butler Law v. Hon. higgins/winslow Memorial 410 P.3d 1223 Ariz. 2018
State v. Hon. gates/apolinar Altamirano 410 P.3d 433 Ariz. 2018
State v. Hon. gates/apolinar Altamirano 410 P.3d 433 Ariz. 2018
Walker v. U-Haul Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Walker v. U-Haul Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Tiffany Taylor v. Thomas Pandola Ariz. 2018
Tiffany Taylor v. Thomas Pandola Ariz. 2018
J. Ball Trust v. Phx Orchard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
J. Ball Trust v. Phx Orchard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 15 (2017) ( (quotations omitted)).
rasor/miller v. Northwest Hospital LLC Ariz. 2017
rasor/miller v. Northwest Hospital LLC Ariz. 2017
“Words in statutes should be read in context in determining their meaning.” ¶ 7 (2017).
State of Arizona v. Lynn Lavern Burbey Ariz. 2017
State of Arizona v. Lynn Lavern Burbey Ariz. 2017