Cited by

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

308 citing documents.

State v. Jenkins 970 P.2d 947 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Jenkins 970 P.2d 947 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
In determining legislative intent, the court first considers the statute’s language because it is the “best and most reliable index of a statute’s meaning.” , ( , ).
Bishop v. Pecanic 975 P.2d 114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Bishop v. Pecanic 975 P.2d 114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Paging Network of Arizona, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 970 P.2d 450 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Paging Network of Arizona, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 970 P.2d 450 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Cramer 962 P.2d 224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Cramer 962 P.2d 224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Nihiser 953 P.2d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
State v. Sanchez 956 P.2d 1240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
State v. Nihiser 953 P.2d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
In determining legislative intent, we first consider the statute’s language because it is “the best and most reliable index of a statute’s meaning.”
State v. Sanchez 956 P.2d 1240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
We determine that intent by first examining the statute’s language because it is “the best and most reliable index of a statute’s meaning.”
State v. Riggs 942 P.2d 1159 Ariz. 1997
State v. Riggs 942 P.2d 1159 Ariz. 1997
State v. Jones 937 P.2d 310 Ariz. 1997
State v. Jones 937 P.2d 310 Ariz. 1997
When a term is not defined in a statute, the court looks first to the statute’s language to determine the legislative intent, as the language is the “best and most reliable index of a statute’s meaning.” , ( , ).
Arizona Department of Revenue v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. 937 P.2d 363 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Arizona Department of Revenue v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. 937 P.2d 363 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Zamora v. Reinstein 915 P.2d 1227 Ariz. 1996
Zamora v. Reinstein 915 P.2d 1227 Ariz. 1996
We first consider the statute’s language “because we expect it to be ‘the best and most rehable index of a statute’s meaning.’ ” Id., 854 P.2d at 133 , , see also Canon, 177 Ariz. at 529 , 869 P.2d at 503 (“[W]here the language is plain and unambiguous, courts generally must follow the text as written.”).
Homebuilders Ass'n of Central Arizona v. City of Scottsdale 925 P.2d 1359 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Homebuilders Ass'n of Central Arizona v. City of Scottsdale 925 P.2d 1359 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Lawrence v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 907 P.2d 531 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Lawrence v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 907 P.2d 531 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Pfeil v. Smith 900 P.2d 12 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Pfeil v. Smith 900 P.2d 12 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Wells Fargo Credit Corp. v. Tolliver 903 P.2d 1101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Wells Fargo Credit Corp. v. Tolliver 903 P.2d 1101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Mercy Healthcare Arizona, Inc. v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System 887 P.2d 625 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Mercy Healthcare Arizona, Inc. v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System 887 P.2d 625 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Lindsey 885 P.2d 144 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Lindsey 885 P.2d 144 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
“[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.”
Watahomigie v. BD. OF WATER QUALITY APP. 887 P.2d 550 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Watahomigie v. BD. OF WATER QUALITY APP. 887 P.2d 550 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Janson *31 v. Christensen
Midland Risk Management Co. v. Watford 876 P.2d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Midland Risk Management Co. v. Watford 876 P.2d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Arizona Municipal Water Users Ass'n v. Arizona Department of Water Resources 888 P.2d 1323 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Arizona Municipal Water Users Ass'n v. Arizona Department of Water Resources 888 P.2d 1323 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Canty v. Canty 874 P.2d 1000 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Canty v. Canty 874 P.2d 1000 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Watahomigie v. Arizona Board of Water Quality Appeals 887 P.2d 550 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Watahomigie v. Arizona Board of Water Quality Appeals 887 P.2d 550 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Canon School District No. 50 v. W.E.S. Construction Co. 869 P.2d 500 Ariz. 1994
Canon School District No. 50 v. W.E.S. Construction Co. 869 P.2d 500 Ariz. 1994
For this reason, we have often stated that the “best and most reliable index of a statute’s meaning is its language,” , and where the language is plain and unambiguous, courts generally must follow the text as written.
State v. Williams 854 P.2d 131 Ariz. 1993
State v. Williams 854 P.2d 131 Ariz. 1993
We look first to the statute’s language because we expect it to be “the best and most reliable index of a statute’s meaning.”
Sunpower of Arizona, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 854 P.2d 142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Sunpower of Arizona, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 854 P.2d 142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Aitken v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 842 P.2d 1313 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Followed Aitken v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 842 P.2d 1313 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993