Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Carrow Co. v. Lusby, 804 P.2d 747.
-
State v. Hoggatt
18 P.3d 1239
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
can [also] be discovered by examining the development of a particular statute.”
- In Re Paul M. 7 P.3d 131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
-
In Re Paul M.
7 P.3d 131
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
“Legislative intent often can be discovered by examining the development of a particular statute.”
- State v. Clary 2 P.3d 1255 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
- State v. Clary 2 P.3d 1255 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
- Thomas v. Kenneth 953 P.2d 931 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
-
Thomas v. Kenneth
953 P.2d 931
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
(“Statutes are not to be construed as effecting any change in the common law beyond that which is clearly indicated.”).
- Conant v. Whitney 947 P.2d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
-
Conant v. Whitney
947 P.2d 864
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
V. At trial, Whitney moved for a directed verdict and argued that, , neither his failure to keep the bull out of the Desert Unit nor his failure to maintain fences was a breach of his duty to the Conants.
- 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
- Mail Boxes v. Industrial Commission 888 P.2d 777 Ariz. 1995
- Mail Boxes v. Industrial Commission 888 P.2d 777 Ariz. 1995
- Matter of Appeal in Maricopa County 887 P.2d 599 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
- Matter of Appeal in Maricopa County 887 P.2d 599 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
- Hayes v. Continental Insurance 872 P.2d 668 Ariz. 1994
-
Hayes v. Continental Insurance
872 P.2d 668
Ariz. 1994
(“Legislative intent can often be discovered by examining the development of a particular statute.”).
- State v. Dawson 858 P.2d 1213 Ariz. 1993
-
State v. Dawson
858 P.2d 1213
Ariz. 1993
(The court will not read a statute as altering common law absent an express intent by the legislature to do so.).
- State v. Helffrich 846 P.2d 151 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
-
State v. Helffrich
846 P.2d 151
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
348, 350 , examining the policy behind the statute and the evil sought to be remedied, , , State ex rel.
- State Compensation Fund v. Ireland 851 P.2d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
- State Compensation Fund v. Ireland 851 P.2d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
- Fry's Food Stores v. Industrial Commission 845 P.2d 504 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
-
Fry's Food Stores v. Industrial Commission
845 P.2d 504
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
The language of the statute and the act of which it is part is the primary evidence of legislative intent, e.g., id., but we also infer intent from the history of the statute and act, , and their general purpose
- 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
§ 1-213; e.g., Mid-Kansas Federal Savings and Loan Ass’n , , see also A.R.S.
- Vo v. Superior Court 836 P.2d 408 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
- Vo v. Superior Court 836 P.2d 408 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
- Matera v. Superior Court 825 P.2d 971 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
- Matera v. Superior Court 825 P.2d 971 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
- Newman v. Maricopa County 808 P.2d 1253 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
-
Newman v. Maricopa County
808 P.2d 1253
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
See Markowitz, 146 Ariz. at 357 , 706 P.2d at 369 (“To postulate that the possessor of land has no duty at all to protect its invitees or warn of specific types of danger is to postulate that it can never be liable, no matter what the circumstances.”); , (paraphrasing Markowitz: “To postulate that the owner of livestock has no duty at all [to motorists on public highways] is to postulate that the owner can never be liable, no matter what the circumstances.”).