Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Hayes v. Continental Insurance, 872 P.2d 668.
- Scenic Arizona v. City of Phoenix Board of Adjustment 268 P.3d 370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
- State of Arizona v. Aaron Raymond Fikes 267 P.3d 1181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
- State of Arizona v. Aaron Raymond Fikes 267 P.3d 1181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
- State of Arizona v. Linda Ann Siplivy 265 P.3d 1104 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
- State of Arizona v. Linda Ann Siplivy 265 P.3d 1104 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
- State of Arizona v. Kenneth John Falcone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
- State of Arizona v. Kenneth John Falcone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
- Bt Capital, LLC v. Td Service Co. 265 P.3d 370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
-
Bt Capital, LLC v. Td Service Co.
265 P.3d 370
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
“In pursuing this goal, we consider the statute’s context; its language, subject matter, and historical background; its effects and consequences; and its spirit and purpose.” Bentley, 217 Ariz. at 270, ¶ 13 , 172 P.3d at 865 (quoting Hayes v. Cont’l Ins., Co., , ).
- Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc. v. American Ass'n of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists 257 P.3d 181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
- Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc. v. American Ass'n of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists 257 P.3d 181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
- Bridgestone Retail Tire Operations v. Industrial Commission 258 P.3d 271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
- Bridgestone Retail Tire Operations v. Industrial Commission 258 P.3d 271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
- State v. Garcia 258 P.3d 195 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
- Followed State v. Garcia 258 P.3d 195 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
- Mario G. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 257 P.3d 1162 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
- Mario G. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 257 P.3d 1162 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
- Awsienko v. Cohen 257 P.3d 175 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
- Awsienko v. Cohen 257 P.3d 175 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
- Loftus v. Arizona State University Public Safety Personnel Retirement System Local Board 255 P.3d 1020 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
-
Loftus v. Arizona State University Public Safety Personnel Retirement System Local Board
255 P.3d 1020
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Co., , (statutory text that “allows for more than one rational interpretation” permits a court to “resolve doubt by resorting to statutory interpretation”); , (“An *219 ambiguity in a statute is ‘not simply that arising from the meani
- Haag v. Steinle 255 P.3d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
- Haag v. Steinle 255 P.3d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
- Young v. Beck 251 P.3d 380 Ariz. 2011
- Young v. Beck 251 P.3d 380 Ariz. 2011
- State v. Glassel 248 P.3d 217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
- State v. Glassel 248 P.3d 217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
- Ballesteros v. American Standard Insurance 248 P.3d 193 Ariz. 2011
-
Ballesteros v. American Standard Insurance
248 P.3d 193
Ariz. 2011
Co., -70, -74 (1994) (permitting reliance on non-legislators’ statements in circumstances providing “sufficient guarantees that the statements reflect legislators’ views”).
- CNL Hotels & Resorts, Inc. v. Maricopa County 244 P.3d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
- CNL Hotels & Resorts, Inc. v. Maricopa County 244 P.3d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
- Estate of Braden Ex Rel. Gabaldon v. State 238 P.3d 1265 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
- Estate of Braden Ex Rel. Gabaldon v. State 238 P.3d 1265 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
- SEMPRE LTD. PARTNERSHIP v. Maricopa County 235 P.3d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
-
SEMPRE LTD. PARTNERSHIP v. Maricopa County
235 P.3d 259
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Co., , our supreme court cautioned that “the best policy is not to consider nonlegislators’ statements to determine the legislature’s intent concerning the specific application of a proposed statute, unless the circumstances provide sufficient guarantees that the statements reflect legislator
- LEVERAGED LAND COMPANY, LLC v. Hodges 232 P.3d 756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
- LEVERAGED LAND COMPANY, LLC v. Hodges 232 P.3d 756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
- Young v. Beck 231 P.3d 940 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
-
Young v. Beck
231 P.3d 940
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Co., , (“If the legislature intends to deny, abrogate, or preempt, it must clearly say so.”); , (“If the legislature fails to clearly and plainly manifest an intent to alter the common law, the common law remains in effect.”).
- State v. Munoz 228 P.3d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
- State v. Munoz 228 P.3d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
- STATE EX REL. AZ. STR. PEST CONT. v. Taylor 224 P.3d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
- STATE EX REL. AZ. STR. PEST CONT. v. Taylor 224 P.3d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
- Ballesteros v. American Standard Insurance 222 P.3d 292 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
- Ballesteros v. American Standard Insurance 222 P.3d 292 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
- Lebaron Properties, LLC v. Jeffrey S. Kaufman, Ltd. 221 P.3d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
- Lebaron Properties, LLC v. Jeffrey S. Kaufman, Ltd. 221 P.3d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
- Industrial Commission v. Old Republic Insurance 219 P.3d 285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
- Industrial Commission v. Old Republic Insurance 219 P.3d 285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
- State v. LYCHWICK 218 P.3d 1061 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009