Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Janson v. Christensen, 808 P.2d 1222.

308 citing documents.

T.P. Racing, L.L.L.P. v. Arizona Department of Racing 222 P.3d 280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Industrial Commission v. Old Republic Insurance 219 P.3d 285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Industrial Commission v. Old Republic Insurance 219 P.3d 285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
We will first consider the statutory language, which provides “the best and most reliable index of a statute’s meaning.”
State of Arizona v. Javier Fimbres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Javier Fimbres Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
In interpreting the legislature’s intent, we “look first to the statute’s language because we expect it to be ‘the best and most reliable index of the statute’s meaning.’” Id.
State of Arizona v. Payne Nelson Daniels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Payne 225 P.3d 1131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Payne 225 P.3d 1131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Under “‘fundamental principles of statutory construction,____the best and most reliable index of a statute’s meaning is its language and, when the language is clear and unequivocal, it is determinative of the statute’s construction.’” , , see also Stein v. Sonus USA, Inc.
State of Arizona v. Payne Nelson Daniels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
10 the best and most reliable index of a statute’s meaning is its language and, when the language is clear and unequivocal, it is determinative of the statute’s construction.’” see also Stein v. Sonus USA, Inc.
Egan v. Fridlund-Horne 211 P.3d 1213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Egan v. Fridlund-Horne 211 P.3d 1213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Backus v. State 203 P.3d 499 Ariz. 2009
Backus v. State 203 P.3d 499 Ariz. 2009
Poulson v. OFACK 205 P.3d 1141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Poulson v. OFACK 205 P.3d 1141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
City of Phoenix v. Johnson 204 P.3d 447 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Scottsdale Insurance v. Cendejas 205 P.3d 1128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Scottsdale Insurance v. Cendejas 205 P.3d 1128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
City of Phoenix v. Johnson 204 P.3d 447 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Lake v. City of Phoenix 207 P.3d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Lake v. City of Phoenix 207 P.3d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Joseph M. Arpaio v. Citizen Publishing Co. Mark Kimble Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Joseph M. Arpaio v. Citizen Publishing Co. Mark Kimble Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Janson v. Christensen, 167 Ariz. 470, 471
Havasupai Tribe of the Havasupai Reservation v. Arizona Board of Regents 204 P.3d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Havasupai Tribe of the Havasupai Reservation v. Arizona Board of Regents 204 P.3d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
The plain language of a statute is the strongest indicator of legislative intent, and when that language is clear, “it is determinative of the statute’s construction.” Deer Valley, 214 Ariz. at 296, ¶ 8 , 152 P.3d at 493 ( , ).
State v. Thomas 194 P.3d 394 Ariz. 2008
State v. Thomas 194 P.3d 394 Ariz. 2008
City of Phoenix v. Fields 193 P.3d 782 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
City of Phoenix v. Fields 193 P.3d 782 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
‘When analyzing statutes, we apply ‘fundamental principles of statutory construction, the cornerstone of which is the rule that the best and most reliable index of a statute’s meaning is its language and, when the language is clear and unequivocal, it is determinative of the statute’s construction.’” Deer Valley, 214 Ariz. at 296, ¶ 8 , 152 P.3d at 493 ( , ).
Yollin v. City of Glendale 191 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Yollin v. City of Glendale 191 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
“ ‘[Fundamental principles of statutory construction’ do not allow us to ignore the ‘clear and unequivocal’ language of the statute----” Deer Valley, 214 Ariz. at 299, ¶21 , 152 P.3d at 496 ( , ).
Heatec, Inc. v. R.W. Beckett Corp. 197 P.3d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Heatec, Inc. v. R.W. Beckett Corp. 197 P.3d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Aguilar 178 P.3d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State v. Aguilar 178 P.3d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
the best and most reliable index of a statute’s meaning is its language and, when the language is clear and unequivocal, it is determinative of the statute’s construction.’ ”
UNITED DAIRYMEN OF ARIZONA v. Rawlings 177 P.3d 334 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
UNITED DAIRYMEN OF ARIZONA v. Rawlings 177 P.3d 334 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
National Bank of Arizona v. Thruston 180 P.3d 977 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
National Bank of Arizona v. Thruston 180 P.3d 977 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Bentley v. Building Our Future 172 P.3d 860 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Bentley v. Building Our Future 172 P.3d 860 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
¶ 12 In construing a statute, the starting point is the language of the statute itself “because we expect it to be ‘the best and most reliable index of a statute’s meaning.’” , (citations omitted)
Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System v. Allen 173 P.3d 448 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System v. Allen 173 P.3d 448 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Sheehan v. Flower 170 P.3d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Sheehan v. Flower 170 P.3d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State ex rel. Thomas v. Contes 169 P.3d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State ex rel. Thomas v. Contes 169 P.3d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
(stating general rule that “the best and most reliable index of a statute’s meaning is its language and, when the language is clear and unequivocal, it is determinative of the statute’s construction”).
State Ex Rel. Goddard v. WESTERN UNION FINANCIAL SERVICES INC. 166 P.3d 916 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State Ex Rel. Goddard v. WESTERN UNION FINANCIAL SERVICES INC. 166 P.3d 916 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Taylor 166 P.3d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by