Cited by

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

308 citing documents.

State v. Taylor 166 P.3d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Save Our Valley Ass'n v. Arizona Corp. Commission 165 P.3d 194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. MABERY RANCH, CO., LLC 165 P.3d 211 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. MABERY RANCH, CO., LLC 165 P.3d 211 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Save Our Valley Ass'n v. Arizona Corp. Commission 165 P.3d 194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
In Re Estate of Rodriguez 160 P.3d 679 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
In Re Estate of Rodriguez 160 P.3d 679 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Aranda v. Cardenas, M.D. Nes Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Aranda v. Cardenas, M.D. Nes Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State v. Hansen 160 P.3d 166 Ariz. 2007
State v. Hansen 160 P.3d 166 Ariz. 2007
Gorman v. State ex rel. Owens 155 P.3d 1054 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Gorman v. State ex rel. Owens 155 P.3d 1054 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
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
In re MH 2006-000490 154 P.3d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 154 P.3d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
In re MH 2006-000490 154 P.3d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
(“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”).
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 154 P.3d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
("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 Unified School District No. 97 v. Houser 152 P.3d 490 Ariz. 2007
Deer Valley Unified School District No. 97 v. Houser 152 P.3d 490 Ariz. 2007
Williams v. Baugh 154 P.3d 373 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Williams v. Baugh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Williams v. Baugh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
[as] ‘the best and most reliable index of [the] statute’s meaning.’” Williams, 175 Ariz. at 100, 854 P.2d at 133
Williams v. Baugh 154 P.3d 373 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
[as] ‘the best and most reliable index of [the] statute’s meaning.’” Williams, 175 Ariz. at 100 , 854 P.2d at 133
Yarbrough v. Montoya-Paez 147 P.3d 755 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Yarbrough v. Montoya-Paez 147 P.3d 755 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
To determine legislative intent, we look first to the language the legislature has used as providing “the most reliable evidence of its intent.”
State of Arizona v. Kenneth Scott MacHado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State of Arizona v. Kenneth Scott MacHado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
A statute’s plain language provides “the best and most reliable index of a statute’s meaning.”
In Re Hyrum H. 131 P.3d 1058 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
In Re Hyrum H. 131 P.3d 1058 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Estate of Winn v. Plaza Healthcare, Inc. 128 P.3d 234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Estate of Winn v. Plaza Healthcare, Inc. 128 P.3d 234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District 126 P.3d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District 126 P.3d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
In re MH 2004-001987 120 P.3d 210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 120 P.3d 210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
In re MH 2004-001987 120 P.3d 210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
¶ 14 Arizona courts “follow 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.” , see MH 95-007lh 186 Ariz. at 139 , 920 P.2d at 19 (‘When the legislature has spoken with such explicit direction, our duty is clear.”).
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 120 P.3d 210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
see MH 95-0074, 186 Ariz. at 139 , 920 P.2d at 19 ("When the legislature has spoken with such explicit direction, our duty is clear.").
Primary Consultants, L.L.C. v. Maricopa County Recorder 111 P.3d 435 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Primary Consultants, L.L.C. v. Maricopa County Recorder 111 P.3d 435 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
In Re Estate of Jung 109 P.3d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
In Re Estate of Jung 109 P.3d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Parrot v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. 108 P.3d 922 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Parrot v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. 108 P.3d 922 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Co., Inc., , (noting that, when a statute’s “language is plain and unambiguous, courts generally must follow the text as written”); , (expecting the statute’s own language to be “the best and most reliable index of a statute’s meaning”).
State of Arizona v. Daniel James Alexander Barnett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State of Arizona v. Daniel James Alexander Barnett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
“If the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, we must give it effect without resorting to any rules of statutory construction.” P.2d 1222 (1991).
State v. Fell 97 P.3d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Fell 97 P.3d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
“ ‘[Wjhen the language [of a statute] is clear and unequivocal, it is determinative of the statute’s construction.”’ Viramontes, , 64 P.3d at 189 , , see also Hayes v. Cont’l Ins.
State v. Aguilar 97 P.3d 865 Ariz. 2004

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by