Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Martin v. Martin, 752 P.2d 1038.

130 citing documents.

Foster v. Anable 19 P.3d 630 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
section 37-301(A) in such a manner as to give effect to the legislature’s intent
Southwest Airlines Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 4 P.3d 1018 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Southwest Airlines Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 4 P.3d 1018 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
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