Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Wyatt v. Wehmueller, 806 P.2d 870.

221 citing documents.

Webber v. Grindle Audio Productions, Inc. 60 P.3d 224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Webber v. Grindle Audio Productions, Inc. 60 P.3d 224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
(affirming an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to § 33-420(A) against counsel who caused an invalid document to be recorded on behalf of his clients), vacated in part on other grounds
Flood Control Dist. v. Gaines 43 P.3d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Flood Control Dist. v. Gaines 43 P.3d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Haralson v. Fisher Surveying, Inc. 31 P.3d 114 Ariz. 2001
Haralson v. Fisher Surveying, Inc. 31 P.3d 114 Ariz. 2001
See, , (stating that such awards “punish reprehensible conduct”) (citation omitted); Hawkins v. Allstate Ins.
S Development Co. v. Pima Capital Management Co. 31 P.3d 123 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
S Development Co. v. Pima Capital Management Co. 31 P.3d 123 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
*21 ¶ 29 , in support of their position.
Sherman v. City of Tempe 24 P.3d 1285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Sherman v. City of Tempe 24 P.3d 1285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Co., -04 , -27 (1993) (citations omitted) ( , ).
Doe Ex Rel. Doe v. State 24 P.3d 1269 Ariz. 2001
Doe Ex Rel. Doe v. State 24 P.3d 1269 Ariz. 2001
Saucedo Ex Rel. Sinaloa v. Salvation Army 24 P.3d 1274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Saucedo Ex Rel. Sinaloa v. Salvation Army 24 P.3d 1274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
In Re Moises L. 18 P.3d 1231 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
In Re Moises L. 18 P.3d 1231 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
¶ 6 To interpret an inspecific statute, we must “read the statute as a whole, and give meaningful operation to all of its provisions.”
Andrews v. Eddie's Place, Inc. 16 P.3d 801 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Andrews v. Eddie's Place, Inc. 16 P.3d 801 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Although the legislature may, within constitutional limitations, change, supplement, or abrogate the common law, “[i]f the legislature fails to clearly and plainly manifest an intent to alter the common law, the common law remains in effect.”
State v. Wood 8 P.3d 1189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
TWE Retirement Fund Trust v. Ream 8 P.3d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
TWE Retirement Fund Trust v. Ream 8 P.3d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Wood 8 P.3d 1189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Razo 988 P.2d 1119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Razo 988 P.2d 1119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
“When a statute’s words do not disclose legislative intent, the court must read the statute as a whole, and give meaningful operation to all of its provisions.”
State v. Proctor 2 P.3d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
State v. Proctor 2 P.3d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Wersch v. Radnor/Landgrant 961 P.2d 1047 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Wersch v. Radnor/Landgrant 961 P.2d 1047 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
(construing the meaning of a state statute); , (interpreting court rules using the same principles of construction as statutes).
State v. Nihiser 953 P.2d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
State v. Nihiser 953 P.2d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Renalwest L.C. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 943 P.2d 769 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Renalwest L.C. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 943 P.2d 769 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Home Builders Ass'n v. City of Scottsdale 930 P.2d 993 Ariz. 1997
Home Builders Ass'n v. City of Scottsdale 930 P.2d 993 Ariz. 1997
State Ex Rel. Arizona Department of Revenue v. Phoenix Lodge No. 708, Loyal Order of Moose, Inc. 928 P.2d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State Ex Rel. Arizona Department of Revenue v. Phoenix Lodge No. 708, Loyal Order of Moose, Inc. 928 P.2d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Zamora v. Reinstein 915 P.2d 1227 Ariz. 1996
Zamora v. Reinstein 915 P.2d 1227 Ariz. 1996
PAM TRANSPORT v. Freightliner Corp. 893 P.2d 1295 Ariz. 1995
PAM TRANSPORT v. Freightliner Corp. 893 P.2d 1295 Ariz. 1995
Carter v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 893 P.2d 1291 Ariz. 1995
Carter v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 893 P.2d 1291 Ariz. 1995
The appeals court addressed the same language, along with the phrase “total recovery.” However, because a statute must be viewed as a whole and, where possible, intent given to all its parts, , we must also consider the language in A.R.S.
Hyatt Regency Phoenix Hotel Co. v. Winston & Strawn 907 P.2d 506 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Hyatt Regency Phoenix Hotel Co. v. Winston & Strawn 907 P.2d 506 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
(“If the legislature fails to clearly and plainly manifest an intent to alter the common law, the common law remains in effect.”).
In Re the Commitment of an Alleged Mentally Disordered Person 889 P.2d 1088 Ariz. 1995
In Re the Commitment of an Alleged Mentally Disordered Person 889 P.2d 1088 Ariz. 1995
An important rule of statutory construction is that “the court must read the statute as a whole, and give meaningful operation to all of its provisions.”
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
Callender v. Transpacific Hotel Corp. 880 P.2d 1103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Callender v. Transpacific Hotel Corp. 880 P.2d 1103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993