Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Phoenix Control System, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of North America, 796 P.2d 463.

46 citing documents.

GALLERY v. K HOVNANIAN Ariz. 2026
Co. of N. Am., ); see also Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 144 (2012) (discussing the last-antecedent rule).
Desert Mountain v. Graham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Desert Mountain v. Graham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Taylor v. Aps Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Taylor v. Aps Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Co., (noting that under the rules to interpret a contract a qualifying phrase is applied to the phrase immediately preceding the qualifying phrase as long as there is no contrary intent indicated).
Cable One, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 304 P.3d 1098 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Cable One, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 304 P.3d 1098 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Co. of N. Am., Cable One counters the word "access” cannot be "appendfed]” to "public telephone,” and instead refers either to a public service corporation that provides common carrier services and is also subject to the jurisdiction of the Arizona Corporation Commission, or to payphones.
Pawn 1st, LLC v. City of Phoenix 294 P.3d 147 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Pawn 1st, LLC v. City of Phoenix 294 P.3d 147 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Co., , see also 2A N. Singer, Sutherland Statutes and Statutory Construction § 47:33 (7th ed. 2011) (“Referential and qualifying words and phrases, where no contrary intention appears, refer solely to the last antecedent.”).
Blevins v. Government Employees Insurance 258 P.3d 274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Blevins v. Government Employees Insurance 258 P.3d 274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Wilshire Insurance v. S.A. 227 P.3d 504 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Wilshire Insurance v. S.A. 227 P.3d 504 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Watts v. Arizona Department of Revenue 210 P.3d 1268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Watts v. Arizona Department of Revenue 210 P.3d 1268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Co. of N. Am., , ("The last antecedent rule is recognized in Arizona and requires that a qualifying phrase be applied to the word or phrase immediately preceding as long as there is no contrary intent indicated.”); Black’s Law Dictionary 882 (6th ed.1990) (describing the last antecedent rule as "[a] cano
NEW SUN BUSINESS PARK, LLC v. Yuma County 209 P.3d 179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
NEW SUN BUSINESS PARK, LLC v. Yuma County 209 P.3d 179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Lowe v. Pima County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Lowe v. Pima County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Co. of N. Am., reversed on other grounds, P.2d 463 (1990).
Liberty Insurance Underwriters, Inc. v. Weitz Co. 158 P.3d 209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Liberty Insurance Underwriters, Inc. v. Weitz Co. 158 P.3d 209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Lennar Corp. v. Auto-Owners Insurance 151 P.3d 538 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Lennar Corp. v. Auto-Owners Insurance 151 P.3d 538 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Co. of N. America, , an insured agreed that he intended to use material copyrighted by his competitor in soliciting business from a po *264 tential client because he believed he had the legal right to use the material.
Gamez v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 141 P.3d 794 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
North Valley Emergency, Specialists, L.L.C. v. Santana 93 P.3d 501 Ariz. 2004
North Valley Emergency, Specialists, L.L.C. v. Santana 93 P.3d 501 Ariz. 2004
Andrews v. Samaritan Health System 36 P.3d 57 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Andrews v. Samaritan Health System 36 P.3d 57 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
US West Communications, Inc. v. City of Tucson 11 P.3d 1054 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
US West Communications, Inc. v. City of Tucson 11 P.3d 1054 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Co. of N. Am., , (“The last antecedent rule is not inflexible and it will not be applied where the context or clear meaning of a word or phrase requires otherwise.”).
K.B. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 941 P.2d 1288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
K.B. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 941 P.2d 1288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
); see Steinmetz v. National Am.
Ohio Casualty Insurance v. Henderson 939 P.2d 1337 Ariz. 1997
Ohio Casualty Insurance v. Henderson 939 P.2d 1337 Ariz. 1997
Ohio Casualty Insurance v. Henderson 927 P.2d 815 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Ohio Casualty Insurance v. Henderson 927 P.2d 815 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
See generally Phoenix Control Systems, , Transamerica Ins.
Northern Ins. Co. of New York v. Morgan 918 P.2d 1051 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Northern Ins. Co. of New York v. Morgan 918 P.2d 1051 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Allstate Insurance v. O'Toole 896 P.2d 254 Ariz. 1995
Allstate Insurance v. O'Toole 896 P.2d 254 Ariz. 1995
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Lindsey 885 P.2d 144 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Lindsey 885 P.2d 144 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Republic Insurance v. Feidler 875 P.2d 187 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Republic Insurance v. Feidler 875 P.2d 187 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
see also Steinmetz v. National Am.
St. Paul Property & Liability Insurance v. Eymann 802 P.2d 1043 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
St. Paul Property & Liability Insurance v. Eymann 802 P.2d 1043 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990