Cited by

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

308 citing documents.

Followed State v. Aguilar 97 P.3d 865 Ariz. 2004
(stating that “we 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 unequivo
Carl Seel v. Tim Sifert Ariz. 2004
Carl Seel v. Tim Sifert Ariz. 2004
A. ¶6 In interpreting a statute, we first look to the statutory language “because we expect it to be ‘the best and most reliable index of a statute’s meaning.’” ( ).
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
¶ 9 A statute’s language is “the best and most reliable index of a statute’s meaning.” , (quoting Janson v. Chñstensen, , ).
State v. Nelson 90 P.3d 206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Nelson 90 P.3d 206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
“[T]he 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.”
Maycock v. Asilomar Development, Inc. 88 P.3d 565 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Maycock v. Asilomar Development, Inc. 88 P.3d 565 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Bentivegna v. Powers Steel & Wire Products, Inc. 81 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Bentivegna v. Powers Steel & Wire Products, Inc. 81 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Ontiveros 81 P.3d 330 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Ontiveros 81 P.3d 330 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
We look first to the language of the statute as “the best and most reliable index of a statute’s meaning.” , ( , ).
State v. Tsinnijinnie 80 P.3d 284 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Tsinnijinnie 80 P.3d 284 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
We look first to the language of the statute as “the best and most reliable index of a statute’s meaning.” , ( , ).
Commitment of Olin Gene Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
In Re the Commitment of Taylor 78 P.3d 1076 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
In Re the Commitment of Taylor 78 P.3d 1076 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
We look first to its language as “the best and most reliable index of a statute’s meaning.”
Commitment of Olin Gene Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
We look first to its language as “the best and most reliable index of a statute’s meaning.”
Galati v. America West Airlines, Inc. 69 P.3d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Trust v. County of Yuma 69 P.3d 510 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Trust v. County of Yuma 69 P.3d 510 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Galati v. America West Airlines, Inc. 69 P.3d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
“[T]he 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.”
Sanderson Lincoln Mercury, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co. 68 P.3d 428 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Sanderson Lincoln Mercury, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co. 68 P.3d 428 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Co., Inc., , , (If the statutory language is unambiguous, we give effect to the language and do not use other rules of statutory construction in interpretation.); A.R.S.
State v. Thompson 65 P.3d 420 Ariz. 2003
State v. Viramontes 64 P.3d 188 Ariz. 2003
State v. Viramontes 64 P.3d 188 Ariz. 2003
Hurley Trucking Co. v. State ex rel. Arizona Department of Transportation 39 P.3d 527 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Hurley Trucking Co. v. State ex rel. Arizona Department of Transportation 39 P.3d 527 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Hurley contends that this court cannot resort to extrinsic aids in interpreting A.R.S.
Albers v. Edelson Technology Partners L.P. 31 P.3d 821 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Albers v. Edelson Technology Partners L.P. 31 P.3d 821 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
(“[T]he 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 v. Thompson 27 P.3d 796 Ariz. 2001
State v. Thompson 27 P.3d 796 Ariz. 2001
West Maricopa Combine, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Water Resources 26 P.3d 1171 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
West Maricopa Combine, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Water Resources 26 P.3d 1171 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
¶26 “[T]he 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.”
Samsel v. Allstate Insurance 19 P.3d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Samsel v. Allstate Insurance 19 P.3d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Indeed, “the best and most reliable index of a statute’s meaning is its language.”
Calik v. Superior Court 979 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Calik v. Superior Court 979 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
(courts must give effect to unambiguous statutory language and may not employ other rules of construction to interpret such language).
City of Sierra Vista v. Director, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 988 P.2d 162 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
City of Sierra Vista v. Director, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 988 P.2d 162 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
“[T]he 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.”
Gray v. Irwin 987 P.2d 759 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Gray v. Irwin 987 P.2d 759 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Rineer v. Leonardo 977 P.2d 767 Ariz. 1999
Rineer v. Leonardo 977 P.2d 767 Ariz. 1999
“[T]he best and most reliable index of a statute’s meaning is its language.”
State v. Mahaney 975 P.2d 156 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Mahaney 975 P.2d 156 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Schwartz v. Arizona Primary Care Physicians 964 P.2d 491 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Schwartz v. Arizona Primary Care Physicians 964 P.2d 491 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998