Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Pima County by City of Tucson v. Maya Const. Co., 761 P.2d 1055.

80 citing documents.

Kp Ventures v. Mohave Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Kp Ventures v. Mohave Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
§ 11-622 “does not apply.” KP Ventures argues that “Arizona precedent shows the inapplicability of A.R.S.
State of Arizona v. Daniel Louis Santillanes Ariz. 2024
State of Arizona v. Daniel Louis Santillanes Ariz. 2024
Co., (internal citations omitted) (cleaned up).
Marsh v. Atkins 536 P.3d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Marsh v. Atkins 536 P.3d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Mills and Woods v. Weiss Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Mills and Woods v. Weiss Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Hees v. Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Hees v. Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Co., Ariz. Dep’t (“It is a basic principle of statutory construction that tax statutes relating to the same subject should be read together and construed as a whole.”); Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue v. S. Point Energy Ctr., LLC, ¶ 12 (App. 2
Lisa Friedman v. David C Roels Jr 418 P.3d 884 Ariz. 2018
Lisa Friedman v. David C Roels Jr 418 P.3d 884 Ariz. 2018
4 FRIEDMAN V. ROELS Opinion of the Court (1998).
Allstate v. Watts 418 P.3d 1026 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Allstate v. Watts 418 P.3d 1026 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Co., ); ¶ 22 (App. 2011) (“[A] party is bound to arbitrate only those disputes which it has contractually agreed to arbitrate.”).
Linda Bell v. Ica/ Maricopa Cty/ Pinnacle Risk 341 P.3d 1149 Ariz. 2015
Linda Bell v. Ica/ Maricopa Cty/ Pinnacle Risk 341 P.3d 1149 Ariz. 2015
Angel B. v. Vanessa J. 316 P.3d 1257 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Angel B. v. Vanessa J. 316 P.3d 1257 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
A. Miner Contracting, Inc. v. Toho-Tolani County Improvement District 311 P.3d 1062 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
A. Miner Contracting, Inc. v. Toho-Tolani County Improvement District 311 P.3d 1062 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Democratic Party of Pima County v. Beth Ford Pima County Board of Supervisors 269 P.3d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Democratic Party of Pima County v. Beth Ford Pima County Board of Supervisors 269 P.3d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Co., (we construe related statutes together to give proper effect to all involved).
State of Arizona v. Kenneth John Falcone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Kenneth John Falcone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Reeves v. Barlow 251 P.3d 417 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Reeves v. Barlow 251 P.3d 417 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Bowsher 242 P.3d 1055 Ariz. 2010
State v. Bowsher 242 P.3d 1055 Ariz. 2010
Fidelity National Financial Inc. v. Friedman 238 P.3d 118 Ariz. 2010
Fidelity National Financial Inc. v. Friedman 238 P.3d 118 Ariz. 2010
Co., 158 Ariz. 151, 155, (“[I]f statutes relate to the same subject and are thus in pari materia, they should be construed together .
State v. FAR WEST WATER & SEWER INC. 228 P.3d 909 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. FAR WEST WATER & SEWER INC. 228 P.3d 909 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Arizona Tile, L.L.C. v. Berger 224 P.3d 988 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Arizona Tile, L.L.C. v. Berger 224 P.3d 988 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Arizona Department of Adminstration v. Cox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Arizona Department of Adminstration v. Cox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Co., (statutes relating to same subject are pari materia and are construed together with other related statutes as one law); see also State ex rel.
COUNTY OF COCHISE v. SEBASTIAO FARIA and MARIA FARI Dba FARIA DAIRY Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
COUNTY OF COCHISE v. SEBASTIAO FARIA and MARIA FARI Dba FARIA DAIRY Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Barth v. Cochise County 138 P.3d 1186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Barth v. Cochise County 138 P.3d 1186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
¶12 our supreme court held: [R]epeal of statutes by implication is not favored in the law.
STATE EX REL. DEPT. ECONOMIC SEC. v. Hayden 115 P.3d 116 Ariz. 2005
STATE EX REL. DEPT. ECONOMIC SEC. v. Hayden 115 P.3d 116 Ariz. 2005
Facilitec Inc v. J Elliott Hibbs 80 P.3d 765 Ariz. 2003
Facilitec Inc v. J Elliott Hibbs 80 P.3d 765 Ariz. 2003
Co., 158 Ariz. 151, 155, (“[W]hen reconciling two or more statutes, courts should construe and interpret them, whenever possible, in such a way so as to give effect to all the statutes involved.”).
Steer Ex Rel. K & K Cable, Inc. v. Eggleston 47 P.3d 1161 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Steer Ex Rel. K & K Cable, Inc. v. Eggleston 47 P.3d 1161 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
KZPZ Broadcasting, Inc. v. Black Canyon City Concerned Citizens 13 P.3d 772 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
KZPZ Broadcasting, Inc. v. Black Canyon City Concerned Citizens 13 P.3d 772 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Andress v. City of Chandler 7 P.3d 121 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Andress v. City of Chandler 7 P.3d 121 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000