Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Martin v. Martin, 752 P.2d 1038.
- Arizona Department of Revenue v. Great Western Publishing, Inc. 3 P.3d 992 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
- Arizona Department of Revenue v. Great Western Publishing, Inc. 3 P.3d 992 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
- Kessen v. Stewart 990 P.2d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
- Kessen v. Stewart 990 P.2d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
- Marriage of Gutierrez v. Gutierrez 972 P.2d 676 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
-
Marriage of Gutierrez v. Gutierrez
972 P.2d 676
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
§ 25-318(A) (1991); , Hrudka, 186 Ariz. at 93 , 919 P.2d at 188 .
- State v. Cramer 962 P.2d 224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
- State v. Cramer 962 P.2d 224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
- Toth v. Toth 946 P.2d 900 Ariz. 1997
- Lewis v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 925 P.2d 751 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
- Lewis v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 925 P.2d 751 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
- Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System v. Cochise County 920 P.2d 776 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
- Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System v. Cochise County 920 P.2d 776 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
- Hrudka v. Hrudka 919 P.2d 179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
- Hrudka v. Hrudka 919 P.2d 179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
- Brodsky v. Phoenix P.D. Ret. Sys. Bd. 900 P.2d 1228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
- Brodsky v. Phoenix P.D. Ret. Sys. Bd. 900 P.2d 1228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
- Van Dyke v. Steinle 902 P.2d 1372 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
- Van Dyke v. Steinle 902 P.2d 1372 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
- State v. Valdez 894 P.2d 708 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
- State v. Valdez 894 P.2d 708 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
- Metro Collections v. Meggers 886 P.2d 649 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
- Metro Collections v. Meggers 886 P.2d 649 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
- Midland Risk Management Co. v. Watford 876 P.2d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
-
Midland Risk Management Co. v. Watford
876 P.2d 1203
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
State Farm Mutual Auto Ins.
- Hayes v. Continental Insurance 872 P.2d 668 Ariz. 1994
-
Hayes v. Continental Insurance
872 P.2d 668
Ariz. 1994
(examining statute’s history, effects, wording, and the *269 context of the overall legislative scheme).
- Dunn v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 866 P.2d 858 Ariz. 1994
- Dunn v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 866 P.2d 858 Ariz. 1994
- Guertin v. Dixon 864 P.2d 1072 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
-
Guertin v. Dixon
864 P.2d 1072
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
In determining the legislative intent of a statute, we consider “the context of the statute, the language used, the subject matter, the historical background, the effects and consequences, and the spirit and purpose of the law.”
- State v. Williams 854 P.2d 131 Ariz. 1993
- State v. Williams 854 P.2d 131 Ariz. 1993
- Saunders v. Board of Pardons & Paroles 847 P.2d 1124 Ariz. 1993
- Saunders v. Board of Pardons & Paroles 847 P.2d 1124 Ariz. 1993
- State v. Rowan 848 P.2d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
- State v. Rowan 848 P.2d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
- State v. Womack 847 P.2d 609 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
-
State v. Womack
847 P.2d 609
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
(legislative intent determined by policy and historical background of statute); , (the primary principle in statutory interpretation is to determine legislative intent).
- State v. Wedding 831 P.2d 398 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
- State v. Wedding 831 P.2d 398 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
- Devenir Associates v. City of Phoenix 821 P.2d 161 Ariz. 1991
- Devenir Associates v. City of Phoenix 821 P.2d 161 Ariz. 1991
- State v. Campa 814 P.2d 748 Ariz. 1991
-
State v. Campa
814 P.2d 748
Ariz. 1991
(citing Calvert v. Farmers Ins.
- State Ex Rel. Romley v. Superior Court 812 P.2d 985 Ariz. 1991
- State Ex Rel. Romley v. Superior Court 812 P.2d 985 Ariz. 1991
- St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. Gilmore 812 P.2d 977 Ariz. 1991
-
St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. Gilmore
812 P.2d 977
Ariz. 1991
The cardinal rule is to determine and give effect to the legislative intent behind the statute, considering the “context of the statute, the language used, the subject matter, the historical background, the effects and consequences, and the spirit and purpose of the law.” , Calvert, 144 Ariz. at 294 , 697 P.2d at 687 .
- State v. Takacs 819 P.2d 978 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991