Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Hayes v. Continental Insurance, 872 P.2d 668.

433 citing documents.

Stenz v. Industrial Commission 353 P.3d 361 Ariz. 2015
Co., , (holding that A.R.S.
Wilks Et Vir v. Manobianco 352 P.3d 912 Ariz. 2015
Wilks Et Vir v. Manobianco 352 P.3d 912 Ariz. 2015
Merkens v. Federal Insurance 349 P.3d 1111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Merkens v. Federal Insurance 349 P.3d 1111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Co., (injured worker could proceed with bad faith action in superior court after seeking workers’ compensation benefits that the carrier improperly denied without justification at the Industrial Commission);3 Franks, 149 Ariz. at 292-93, 718 P.2d at 194-95 (injured worker filed bad faith laws
Winckler v. Bnsf Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Winckler v. Bnsf Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Watts v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp. 342 P.3d 847 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Watts v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp. 342 P.3d 847 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Co., (explaining that “if possible we construe statues to avoid unnecessary resolution of constitutional issues”).
Orca Communications v. Ann Noder Et vir/pitch Public 337 P.3d 545 Ariz. 2014
Orca Communications v. Ann Noder Et vir/pitch Public 337 P.3d 545 Ariz. 2014
Courtney v. Hon. foster/courtney 334 P.3d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Courtney v. Hon. foster/courtney 334 P.3d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Wyatt Ex Rel. Estate of Wyatt v. Vanguard Health Systems, Inc. 329 P.3d 1040 Ariz. 2014
Wyatt Ex Rel. Estate of Wyatt v. Vanguard Health Systems, Inc. 329 P.3d 1040 Ariz. 2014
Co., -69, -73 (1994) (considering legislative history).
Cross v. Elected Officials Retirement Plan 325 P.3d 1001 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Cross v. Elected Officials Retirement Plan 325 P.3d 1001 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona Ex Rel. Montgomery v. Hrach Shilgevorkyan 322 P.3d 160 Ariz. 2014
State of Arizona Ex Rel. Montgomery v. Hrach Shilgevorkyan 322 P.3d 160 Ariz. 2014
State of Arizona v. Brady Whitman, Jr. 324 P.3d 851 Ariz. 2014
State of Arizona v. Brady Whitman, Jr. 324 P.3d 851 Ariz. 2014
Co., (observing that ambiguity exists if a text “allows for more than one reasonable interpretation”); Sparks v. Republic Nat’l Life Ins.
Clean Elections v. Hon. brain/bennett Ariz. 2014
Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission v. Brain 322 P.3d 139 Ariz. 2014
Clean Elections v. Hon. brain/bennett Ariz. 2014
Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission v. Brain 322 P.3d 139 Ariz. 2014
CSA 13-101 Loop, LLC v. Loop 101, LLC 312 P.3d 1121 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
CSA 13-101 Loop, LLC v. Loop 101, LLC 312 P.3d 1121 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Karl v. US Bank National Ass'n 308 P.3d 1173 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Karl v. US Bank National Ass'n 308 P.3d 1173 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
TP Racing, L.L.L.P. v. Simms 307 P.3d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
TP Racing, L.L.L.P. v. Simms 307 P.3d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Cable One, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 304 P.3d 1098 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Cable One, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 304 P.3d 1098 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Co., , ¶ 11 , (relying on comments made by legislative analyst about purpose of legislation).
Robbins v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 300 P.3d 556 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Robbins v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 300 P.3d 556 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Kahn v. Arizona Medical Board 300 P.3d 552 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Kahn v. Arizona Medical Board 300 P.3d 552 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Robert Baker v. University Physicians Healthcare 296 P.3d 42 Ariz. 2013
Robert Baker v. University Physicians Healthcare 296 P.3d 42 Ariz. 2013
State v. Bayardi 281 P.3d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. Bayardi 281 P.3d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Co., -70 , -74 (1994) (“When seeking to ascertain the intent of legislators, courts normally give little or no weight to comments made at committee hearings by nonlegisla-tors.”); see also Sempre Ltd. P’ ¶¶ 20-22 , (citing Hayes
PNC Bank v. Cabinetry by Karman, Inc. 284 P.3d 874 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
PNC Bank v. Cabinetry by Karman, Inc. 284 P.3d 874 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
CNL Hotels & Resorts, Inc. v. Maricopa County 279 P.3d 1183 Ariz. 2012
CNL Hotels & Resorts, Inc. v. Maricopa County 279 P.3d 1183 Ariz. 2012
American Family Mutual Insurance v. Sharp 277 P.3d 192 Ariz. 2012
American Family Mutual Insurance v. Sharp 277 P.3d 192 Ariz. 2012
Co., 178 Ariz. 7 264, 268, 2 ¶11 This Court has previously found that “the legislature intended a broad application of UIM coverage to provide benefits up to the policy limits whenever the insured is not indemnified fully by the available limits of liability.”
Helvetica Servicing, Inc. v. Pasquan 277 P.3d 198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Helvetica Servicing, Inc. v. Pasquan 277 P.3d 198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Co., , (citing State Farm Mut.
Scenic Arizona v. City of Phoenix Board of Adjustment 268 P.3d 370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by