Cited by

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

433 citing documents.

Country Mutual Insurance v. Hartley 65 P.3d 977 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
our supreme court said that a law should not be interpreted “to deny, preempt, or abrogate common-law damage actions unless the statute’s text or history shows an explicit legislative intent to reach so severe a result.” The Hayes court noted that “[i]t is, after all, easy enough for t
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Raby 65 P.3d 458 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Raby 65 P.3d 458 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Co., , (ambiguity exists in statute if meaning or interpretation of statute’s terms is uncertain).
GARDEN LAKES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC. v. Madigan 62 P.3d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
GARDEN LAKES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC. v. Madigan 62 P.3d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Estate of McGill Ex Rel. McGill v. Albrecht 57 P.3d 384 Ariz. 2002
Estate of McGill Ex Rel. McGill v. Albrecht 57 P.3d 384 Ariz. 2002
Co., (where statute’s text is clear and unambiguous, we apply it without resorting to other methods; where there is ambiguity, we interpret by attempting 7 to determine legislative intent; where we cannot ascertain legislative intent o
LaFaro v. Cahill 56 P.3d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
LaFaro v. Cahill 56 P.3d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Co., , (if the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, we apply it without resorting to other methods of interpretation); (“repeated acts” in anti-stalking statute means more than once)
Ralph E Hughes v. Douglas K Martin 52 P.3d 197 Ariz. 2002
Ralph E Hughes v. Douglas K Martin 52 P.3d 197 Ariz. 2002
McMann v. City of Tucson 47 P.3d 672 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
McMann v. City of Tucson 47 P.3d 672 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Co., , (nonlegislator’s comments only considered to show what was not under consideration); see also Montgomery.
State v. Huskie 44 P.3d 161 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Huskie 44 P.3d 161 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Romley v. Arpaio 40 P.3d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Romley v. Arpaio 40 P.3d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Co., , we decide that the term “parties” in Rule 10.07 refers only to employees.
State v. Seyrafi 32 P.3d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Seyrafi 32 P.3d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Co., , (“[I]f possible, this court construes statutes to avoid rendering them unconstitutional.”).
In Re Kyle M. 27 P.3d 804 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
In Re Kyle M. 27 P.3d 804 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Rowland v. Great States Insurance 20 P.3d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Rowland v. Great States Insurance 20 P.3d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Co., , Boy v. Fremont Indem.
Vega v. Sullivan 19 P.3d 645 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
City of Casa Grande v. Arizona Water Co. 20 P.3d 590 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
City of Casa Grande v. Arizona Water Co. 20 P.3d 590 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Vega v. Sullivan 19 P.3d 645 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Co., , Devenir Associates, 169 Ariz. at 503 , 821 P.2d at 164 .
Gunnell v. Arizona Public Service Co. 18 P.3d 176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
True v. Stewart 18 P.3d 707 Ariz. 2001
Hobson v. Mid-Century Insurance 19 P.3d 1241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Hobson v. Mid-Century Insurance 19 P.3d 1241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Co., , (“If a statute’s language is clear and unambiguous, we apply it without resorting to other methods of statutory interpretation.”).
State v. Hoggatt 18 P.3d 1239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Hoggatt 18 P.3d 1239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Circle K Stores, Inc. v. Apache County 18 P.3d 713 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Circle K Stores, Inc. v. Apache County 18 P.3d 713 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Co., , (“Frist, if possible this court construes statutes to avoid rendering them unconstitutional.”).
Zuther v. State 14 P.3d 295 Ariz. 2000
Zuther v. State 14 P.3d 295 Ariz. 2000
Aranda v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 11 P.3d 1006 Ariz. 2000
Aranda v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 11 P.3d 1006 Ariz. 2000
US West Communications, Inc. v. City of Tucson 11 P.3d 1054 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
US West Communications, Inc. v. City of Tucson 11 P.3d 1054 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
the City contends that “[i]f the Court believes the statute’s text allows for more than one rational interpretation, resort to secondary resources is appropriate.” However, we agree with US West that the affidavit consists of advocacy and personal opinion.
Kyle v. Daniels 9 P.3d 1043 Ariz. 2000
Kyle v. Daniels 9 P.3d 1043 Ariz. 2000
In Re Paul M. 7 P.3d 131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
In Re Paul M. 7 P.3d 131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Andress v. City of Chandler 7 P.3d 121 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Andress v. City of Chandler 7 P.3d 121 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
City of Tucson v. Consumers for Retail Choice 5 P.2d 934 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
City of Tucson v. Consumers for Retail Choice 5 P.2d 934 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Co., -70 , -74 (1994) (little or no weight given to nonleg-islator’s comments made in committee hearings unless there are guarantees that statements reflect legislators’ views); , (“[A] single member of the legislature is not able to
In Re Sheree M. 4 P.3d 1067 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by