Cited by

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

433 citing documents.

In Re Sheree M. 4 P.3d 1067 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Gaffney 8 P.3d 376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
State v. Gaffney 8 P.3d 376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Jardanowski v. INDUS. COM'N OF ARIZONA 3 P.3d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Jardanowski v. INDUS. COM'N OF ARIZONA 3 P.3d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Co., , (allowing resort to methods of statutory interpretation in cases of ambiguity).
Washington Elementary School District v. Industrial Commission 993 P.2d 468 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Washington Elementary School District v. Industrial Commission 993 P.2d 468 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Co., , 268-69 and n. 5, , 672-73 and n. 5 (1994) (court may take judicial notice of legislative history).
Calik v. Kongable 990 P.2d 1055 Ariz. 1999
Calik v. Kongable 990 P.2d 1055 Ariz. 1999
Frederikson v. Maricopa County 3 P.3d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Frederikson v. Maricopa County 3 P.3d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Bills v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund 984 P.2d 574 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Bills v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund 984 P.2d 574 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Co., , (holding that Arizona courts have jurisdiction over bad faith actions against workers’ compensation carriers without reaching question of whether such actions are constitutionally protected).
Bohn v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 984 P.2d 565 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Bohn v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 984 P.2d 565 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Kessen v. Stewart 990 P.2d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Kessen v. Stewart 990 P.2d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Co., , Korzep, 165 Ariz. at 493 , 799 P.2d at 834 .
Walters v. Maricopa County 990 P.2d 677 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Walters v. Maricopa County 990 P.2d 677 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Smith v. Arizona Board of Regents 986 P.2d 247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Smith v. Arizona Board of Regents 986 P.2d 247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Leonard H. v. Beneficial Arizona, Inc. 977 P.2d 784 Ariz. 1999
Leonard H. v. Beneficial Arizona, Inc. 977 P.2d 784 Ariz. 1999
Estancia Development Associates, L.L.C. v. City of Scottsdale 993 P.2d 1051 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Estancia Development Associates, L.L.C. v. City of Scottsdale 993 P.2d 1051 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Goodman v. Samaritan Health System 990 P.2d 1061 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Goodman v. Samaritan Health System 990 P.2d 1061 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Cuvelier v. Schmitz 974 P.2d 995 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Cuvelier v. Schmitz 974 P.2d 995 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
San Carlos Apache Tribe v. Superior Court 972 P.2d 179 Ariz. 1999
San Carlos Apache Tribe v. Superior Court 972 P.2d 179 Ariz. 1999
Co., , 269 n. 5, , 673 n. 5 (1994)).
Town of Miami v. City of Globe 985 P.2d 1035 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Town of Miami v. City of Globe 985 P.2d 1035 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Co., , (“If a statute’s language is clear and unambiguous, we apply it without resorting to other methods of statutory interpretation.”).
PhxAz Ltd. Partnership v. Maricopa County 967 P.2d 1026 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
PhxAz Ltd. Partnership v. Maricopa County 967 P.2d 1026 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Co., , (in determining and giving effect to legislature’s intent, court considers statute’s context, language, subject matter and historical background, its effects and consequences, and its spirit and purpose).
Paging Network of Arizona, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 970 P.2d 450 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Paging Network of Arizona, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 970 P.2d 450 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Ramirez v. Health Partners 972 P.2d 658 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Ramirez v. Health Partners 972 P.2d 658 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Napier v. Bertram 954 P.2d 1389 Ariz. 1998
Napier v. Bertram 954 P.2d 1389 Ariz. 1998
Co., , (“we will not interpret a law 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.
Bothell v. Two Point Acres, Inc. 965 P.2d 47 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Bothell v. Two Point Acres, Inc. 965 P.2d 47 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
City of Tucson v. Pima County 949 P.2d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
City of Tucson v. Pima County 949 P.2d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
City of Tucson v. State 957 P.2d 341 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
City of Tucson v. State 957 P.2d 341 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Diaz v. Magma Copper Co. 950 P.2d 1165 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Diaz v. Magma Copper Co. 950 P.2d 1165 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Schoenrock; , (Martone, J., dissenting); , 266 n. 1, , 670 n. 1 (1994) (Article 18, § 6 “preserves the common-law right to recover damages”).
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Arizona Public Service Co. 934 P.2d 796 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by