Cited by

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

433 citing documents.

State v. LYCHWICK 218 P.3d 1061 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State of Arizona v. Regina Marie Lockwood Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Regina Marie Lockwood Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Premiere RV & Mini Storage LLC v. Maricopa County 215 P.3d 1121 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Premiere RV & Mini Storage LLC v. Maricopa County 215 P.3d 1121 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
[its] terms,’ or if ‘the statute’s text allows for more than one rational interpretation.’ ” Stein v. Sonus U.S.A., Inc., ¶ 3 , ( , ).
Cicoria v. Cole 215 P.3d 402 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Cicoria v. Cole 215 P.3d 402 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Campbell v. Barton 215 P.3d 388 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Campbell v. Barton 215 P.3d 388 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Co., , (addressing interpretation of statutes).
Arizona Department of Adminstration v. Cox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Arizona Department of Adminstration v. Cox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Payne Nelson Daniels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Payne 225 P.3d 1131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
EARLY CHILD. DEVEL. & HEALTH BD. v. Brewer 212 P.3d 805 Ariz. 2009
EARLY CHILD. DEVEL. & HEALTH BD. v. Brewer 212 P.3d 805 Ariz. 2009
State v. Payne 225 P.3d 1131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Payne Nelson Daniels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
COUNTY OF COCHISE v. SEBASTIAO FARIA and MARIA FARI Dba FARIA DAIRY Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
COUNTY OF COCHISE v. SEBASTIAO FARIA and MARIA FARI Dba FARIA DAIRY Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
STATE EX REL. INDUS. COM'N v. Word 211 P.3d 1267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
STATE EX REL. INDUS. COM'N v. Word 211 P.3d 1267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State of Arizona v. James Lewandowski Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. James Lewandowski Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. PROVENZINO 212 P.3d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. PROVENZINO 212 P.3d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Patches v. Industrial Com'n of Ariz. 204 P.3d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Patches v. Industrial Com'n of Ariz. 204 P.3d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Hardesty 204 P.3d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Hardesty 204 P.3d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Co., n. 5 , n. 5 (1994).
State v. Thomas 194 P.3d 394 Ariz. 2008
State v. Thomas 194 P.3d 394 Ariz. 2008
James Colt Jones v. Cochise County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
James Colt Jones v. Cochise County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Co., (“[W]e are reluctant to interpret a statute in favor of denial or preemption of tort claims.”).
Heath v. Kiger 176 P.3d 690 Ariz. 2008
Heath v. Kiger 176 P.3d 690 Ariz. 2008
Bentley v. Building Our Future 172 P.3d 860 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Bentley v. Building Our Future 172 P.3d 860 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Robson Ranch Quail Creek, LLC v. Pima County 161 P.3d 588 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Robson Ranch Quail Creek, LLC v. Pima County 161 P.3d 588 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Lee v. State 161 P.3d 583 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Lee v. State 161 P.3d 583 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Home Builders Association v. City of Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Home Builders Association v. City of Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Lincoln v. Holt 156 P.3d 438 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Lincoln v. Holt 156 P.3d 438 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Co., , (finding legislative history “cryptic” and unhelpful in interpreting statute); Matter of Sinclair, 870 F.2d 1340, 1343 (7th Cir.1989) (listing numerous problems with using legislative history), here the only inferences per *26 missible from the legislative history support our interpreta
Picaso v. Tucson Unified School District 154 P.3d 364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Picaso v. Tucson Unified School District 154 P.3d 364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Stein v. Sonus USA, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Stein v. Sonus USA, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
t 2 of Economic Security, and “‘consider the statute’s context; its language, subject matter, and historical background; its effects and consequences; and its spirit and purpose,’”
State ex rel. Thomas v. Talamante 149 P.3d 484 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by