Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Calmat of Arizona v. State Ex Rel. Miller, 859 P.2d 1323.

88 citing documents.

State v. foothills/hanke Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. foothills/hanke Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Furlong 473 P.3d 707 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Furlong 473 P.3d 707 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Hiskett v. Hon. lambert/state 451 P.3d 408 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Hiskett v. Hon. lambert/state 451 P.3d 408 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Miller, (citing Kriz, 145 Ariz. at 377).
Az Electric Power v. Djl 2007 443 P.3d 24 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Az Electric Power v. Djl 2007 443 P.3d 24 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
City of Surprise v. acc/lake Pleasant 437 P.3d 865 Ariz. 2019
State v. Reyes 307 P.3d 35 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Reyes 307 P.3d 35 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Summers Group, Inc. v. Tempe Mechanical, LLC 299 P.3d 743 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Summers Group, Inc. v. Tempe Mechanical, LLC 299 P.3d 743 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Arizona Department of Revenue v. South Point Energy Center, LLC 268 P.3d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Arizona Department of Revenue v. South Point Energy Center, LLC 268 P.3d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Dos Picos Land Ltd. Partnership v. Pima County 240 P.3d 853 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Followed Dos Picos Land Ltd. Partnership v. Pima County 240 P.3d 853 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Miller, , the trial court was without authority to award attorney fees and expenses because Dos Picos’s property was not taken in furtherance of a federally funded project, or Dos Picos’s related argument concerning the ongoing validity of Salaz .
Swift Transportation Co. v. Maricopa County 236 P.3d 1209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Swift Transportation Co. v. Maricopa County 236 P.3d 1209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Arizona Navigable Stream Adjudication Commission 229 P.3d 242 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Arizona Navigable Stream Adjudication Commission 229 P.3d 242 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Miller, , affirmed in part and vacated in part on other grounds
PIMA COUNTY v. DOS PICOS LAND LIMITED PARTNERSHIP SHEPARD, Et Ux. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
PIMA COUNTY v. DOS PICOS LAND LIMITED PARTNERSHIP SHEPARD, Et Ux. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
6 190, 192, (state constitution requires compensation to owners of property injured by inverse condemnation “even though no specific statutory procedure governs this recovery”).
SOROKIN v. Arnold 219 P.3d 250 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
SOROKIN v. Arnold 219 P.3d 250 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Miller, , and will ascribe plain meaning to its terms.
State v. Western Union Financial Services, Inc. 199 P.3d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Western Union Financial Services, Inc. 199 P.3d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Miller, , (stating that to determine legislative intent court first reviews statute’s language).
City of Scottsdale v. CGP-Aberdeen, L.L.C. 177 P.3d 1198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
City of Scottsdale v. CGP-Aberdeen, L.L.C. 177 P.3d 1198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Miller, , (“The spirit and purpose behind the law of eminent domain mandates that the property be valued as of the date of the taking.”).
Thompson v. Thompson 176 P.3d 722 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Thompson v. Thompson 176 P.3d 722 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
1800 OCOTILLO, LLC v. WLB Group, Inc. 176 P.3d 33 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
1800 OCOTILLO, LLC v. WLB Group, Inc. 176 P.3d 33 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Miller, , (acknowledging that courts first review statute’s language to determine legislative intent).
Owens v. M.E. Schepp Ltd. Partnership 165 P.3d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Owens v. M.E. Schepp Ltd. Partnership 165 P.3d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Phoenix City Prosecutor's Office v. Ybarra 160 P.3d 695 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Phoenix City Prosecutor's Office v. Ybarra 160 P.3d 695 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Miller, , and we will ascribe plain meaning to its terms unless they are ambiguous.
State ex rel. Department of Economic Security v. Demetz 130 P.3d 986 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State ex rel. Department of Economic Security v. Demetz 130 P.3d 986 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Miller, , and will ascribe plain meaning to their terms unless they are ambiguous.
Lyons v. State Board of Equalization 104 P.3d 867 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Lyons v. State Board of Equalization 104 P.3d 867 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Miller, , and will ascribe plain meaning to its terms unless the legislature assigned a special meaning to one or more terms.
In Re Leopoldo L. 99 P.3d 578 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
In Re Leopoldo L. 99 P.3d 578 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Miller, , and will ascribe plain meaning to its terms unless they are ambiguous.
Arizona State Democratic Party v. State 98 P.3d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Western Corrections Group, Inc. v. Tierney 96 P.3d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Western Corrections Group, Inc. v. Tierney 96 P.3d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Miller, , and will ascribe plain meaning to its terms unless the legislature assigned a special meaning to one or more terms.
ChartOne, Inc. v. Bernini 83 P.3d 1103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Chartone, Inc. v. Mercaldo, Ltd. Webb, Pc. Durazzo & Eckel Smart Professional Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
ChartOne, Inc. v. Bernini 83 P.3d 1103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Miller, , (a constitutional provision is self-executing if it is effective immediately and does not require ancillary legislation or other action); see also Ariz. Indep.
Chartone, Inc. v. Mercaldo, Ltd. Webb, Pc. Durazzo & Eckel Smart Professional Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
ing the discretionary nature of our jurisdiction in special actions, plaintiffs state that this court “may” exercise its discretion here and that, if it does, “it will preclude the doubtful possibility that Plaintiffs will waste thousands of dollars and countless hours having the special master calculate each class’ aggregate damages.” 7 190, (a constitutional provision is self-executing if it is effective immediately and does not require ancillary legislation or other action); see also Ariz. In