Cited by

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

80 citing documents.

Stulce v. SALT RIVER PROJECT AGRICULTURAL IMPROVEMENT AND POWER DISTRICT 3 P.3d 1007 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Stulce v. SALT RIVER PROJECT AGRICULTURAL IMPROVEMENT AND POWER DISTRICT 3 P.3d 1007 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Walters v. Maricopa County 990 P.2d 677 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Walters v. Maricopa County 990 P.2d 677 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Southern California Edison Co. v. Peabody Western Coal Co. 977 P.2d 769 Ariz. 1999
Southern California Edison Co. v. Peabody Western Coal Co. 977 P.2d 769 Ariz. 1999
State v. Mahaney 975 P.2d 156 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Mahaney 975 P.2d 156 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Tarango 914 P.2d 1300 Ariz. 1996
State v. Tarango 914 P.2d 1300 Ariz. 1996
Co., , (“[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.”).
Canon Sch. Dist. v. WES CONSTR. CO. IV 882 P.2d 1274 Ariz. 1994
Canon School District No. 50 v. W.E.S. Construction Co. 882 P.2d 1274 Ariz. 1994
Canon School District No. 50 v. W.E.S. Construction Co. 882 P.2d 1274 Ariz. 1994
Co., , (holding that where two statutes seemingly conflict, they should be interpreted to give effect to both).
Canon Sch. Dist. v. WES CONSTR. CO. IV 882 P.2d 1274 Ariz. 1994
Co., , (holding that where two statutes seemingly conflict, they should be interpreted to give effect to both).
Canon School District No. 50 v. W.E.S. Construction Co. 868 P.2d 1014 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Canon School District No. 50 v. W.E.S. Construction Co. 868 P.2d 1014 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Co., , (“when 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.”) We conclude that the trial court had authority under A.R.S.
Gibbs v. O'Malley Lumber Co. 868 P.2d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Gibbs v. O'Malley Lumber Co. 868 P.2d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Estate of Hernandez v. Bd. of Regents 866 P.2d 1330 Ariz. 1994
Estate of Hernandez v. Bd. of Regents 866 P.2d 1330 Ariz. 1994
Mead, Samuel & Co., , (Ct.App.
S & R PROPERTIES v. Maricopa County 875 P.2d 150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
S & R PROPERTIES v. Maricopa County 875 P.2d 150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Arnoldi 860 P.2d 503 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
State v. Arnoldi 860 P.2d 503 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
First Phoenix Realty Investments v. Superior Court 841 P.2d 1390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
First Phoenix Realty Investments v. Superior Court 841 P.2d 1390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Lee v. Superior Court 840 P.2d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Lee v. Superior Court 840 P.2d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Lemons v. Superior *123 Court of Gila County
Achen-Gardner, Inc. v. Superior Court 839 P.2d 1093 Ariz. 1992
Achen-Gardner, Inc. v. Superior Court 839 P.2d 1093 Ariz. 1992
Co., , -71 , -26 (1985).