Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Baker v. Gardner, 770 P.2d 766.

81 citing documents.

Huber v. Arizona Naturopathic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Huber v. Arizona Naturopathic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
(directing Arizona courts to “construe seemingly conflicting statutes in harmony when possible”); Scalia & Garner, supra, at 180 (“The imperative of harmony among provisions is more categorical than most other canons of construction because it is invariably true that intelligent drafters do not contradict
Helvetica Servicing Inc v. Michael S Pasquan 470 P.3d 155 Ariz. 2020
Helvetica Servicing Inc v. Michael S Pasquan 470 P.3d 155 Ariz. 2020
See Helvetica I, 229 Ariz. at 497 ¶ 12; (“By choosing judicial foreclosure, the creditor can obtain a deficiency judgment in all cases except those dealing with purchase money collateral on the residential property described in [A.R.S.]
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
See Berndt v. Ariz. Dep’t of Corrs., ¶ 11 (App. 2015) ( (“Only if two statutes truly conflict do we apply the more recent or more specific provision and disregard the other.”).
State v. McCcd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State ex rel. Brnovich v. Maricopa County Community College District Board 395 P.3d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. McCcd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
See Berndt v. Ariz. Dep’t of Corr., ¶ 11 (App. 2015) ().
State ex rel. Brnovich v. Maricopa County Community College District Board 395 P.3d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
See Berndt v. Ariz. Dep’t of Corr., ¶ 11 , ( , ).
Helvetica Servicing, Inc. v. Giraudo 389 P.3d 867 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Helvetica Servicing, Inc. v. Giraudo 389 P.3d 867 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
There we said, “the [] court concluded that if a deed of trust beneficiary chooses to foreclose judicially, as is done with a mortgage, the creditor can elect to waive the security .
White Mountain Health Center, Inc. v. Maricopa County 386 P.3d 416 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
White Mountain Health Center, Inc. v. Maricopa County 386 P.3d 416 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(stating courts “construe seemingly conflicting statutes in harmony when possible,” but “when two statutes truly conflict, either the more recent or more specific controls”); ¶ 11 , (stating that in addition to h
Northern Trust v. Wareing Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Northern Trust v. Wareing Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(“Where the creditor chooses non-judicial foreclosure, he cannot obtain a deficiency judgment if the collateral is within the class protected by the deed of trust anti-deficiency statute.”) (emphasis added).
Compass Bank v. Bennett 375 P.3d 950 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Compass Bank v. Bennett 375 P.3d 950 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
§ 33-722 [under a deed of trust] and sue on the note,” , (supplemental opinion).
Compass v. Bennett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Compass v. Bennett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
§ 33-722 [under a deed of trust] and sue on the note.” (supplemental opinion).
Berndt v. Arizona Department of Corrections 363 P.3d 141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Berndt v. Arizona Department of Corrections 363 P.3d 141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Arizona Bank & Trust v. James R. Barrons Trust 351 P.3d 1099 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Arizona Bank & Trust v. James R. Barrons Trust 351 P.3d 1099 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(noting legislative intent to protect consumers who fail to realize the extent to which they are subjecting assets besides their home to legal process and prevent artificial deficiencies resulting from market swings); , (App.199
CSA 13-101 Loop, LLC v. Loop 101, LLC 341 P.3d 452 Ariz. 2014
CSA 13-101 Loop, LLC v. Loop 101, LLC 341 P.3d 452 Ariz. 2014
BMO Harris Bank N.A. v. Wildwood Creek Ranch, LLC 317 P.3d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
First Credit Union v. Courtney 309 P.3d 929 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
First Credit Union v. Courtney 309 P.3d 929 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
CSA 13-101 Loop, LLC v. Loop 101, LLC 312 P.3d 1121 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
CSA 13-101 Loop, LLC v. Loop 101, LLC 312 P.3d 1121 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
(stating that the statute’s primary purpose is to protect the borrower from the risk of “artificial deficiencies” that may arise from *361 forced sales).
Parkway Bank & Trust Co. v. Zivkovic 304 P.3d 1109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Parkway Bank & Trust Co. v. Zivkovic 304 P.3d 1109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
§ 33-814(G) "appl[y] to all deeds of trust foreclosed by a trustee's sale whether or not they secure purchase money obligations.” Tanque Verde, 172 Ariz. at 313 , 836 P.2d at 1023 ( , ).
National Bank v. Schwartz 283 P.3d 41 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
National Bank v. Schwartz 283 P.3d 41 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
§ 33-729(A), which applies to purchase money mortgages and purchase money deeds of trust that are judicially foreclosed, , and (2) A.R.S.
Helvetica Servicing, Inc. v. Pasquan 277 P.3d 198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Helvetica Servicing, Inc. v. Pasquan 277 P.3d 198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
(supplemental opinion) (“By choosing judicial foreclosure, the creditor can obtain a deficiency judgment in all cases except those dealing with purchase money collateral on the residential property described in § 33-729(A).”).
M & I Marshall & Ilsley Bank v. Mueller 268 P.3d 1135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
M & I Marshall & Ilsley Bank v. Mueller 268 P.3d 1135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Jackson 113 P.3d 112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Jackson 113 P.3d 112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
734 *472 (1970) (“If reasonably practical, a statute should be explained in conjunction with other statutes to the end that they may be harmonious and consistent.”); , (“Courts construe seemingly conflicting statutes in harmony when possible.”).
Lavidas v. Smith 987 P.2d 212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Lavidas v. Smith 987 P.2d 212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
(“[W]hen two statutes truly conflict, either the more recent or more specific controls.”).
State v. Thomas 996 P.2d 113 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Thomas 996 P.2d 113 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Whenever *315 possible, we will interpret two apparently conflicting statutes in a way that harmonizes them and gives rational meaning to both.” Calik, , 979 P.2d l. 1 , (we are required to “construe seemingly conflicting statutes in harmony when possible”).
Prudential v. Estate of Rojo-Pacheco 962 P.2d 213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Prudential v. Estate of Rojo-Pacheco 962 P.2d 213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
“Courts construe seemingly conflicting statutes in harmony when possible.”
Bank One, Arizona, N.A. v. Beauvais 934 P.2d 809 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Bank One, Arizona, N.A. v. Beauvais 934 P.2d 809 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
This question is one of first impression in Arizona, but we are guided by the Arizona Supreme Court’s
State v. Tarango 914 P.2d 1300 Ariz. 1996