Cited by

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

433 citing documents.

Arizona Department of Revenue v. Arizona Public Service Co. 934 P.2d 796 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Sanchez v. City of Tucson 943 P.2d 789 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Sanchez v. City of Tucson 943 P.2d 789 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Co., , neither the statutes establishing ADOT’s exclusive jurisdiction and providing immunity for the city’s policy decisions nor the reasoning of Harlan operates to abrogate appellants’ cause of action in this case.
State v. Soto-Fong 928 P.2d 610 Ariz. 1996
State v. Soto-Fong 928 P.2d 610 Ariz. 1996
Pelletier v. Johnson 937 P.2d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Pelletier v. Johnson 937 P.2d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Centric-Jones Co. v. Town of Marana 937 P.2d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Centric-Jones Co. v. Town of Marana 937 P.2d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State Ex Rel. Arizona Department of Revenue v. Phoenix Lodge No. 708, Loyal Order of Moose, Inc. 928 P.2d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State Ex Rel. Arizona Department of Revenue v. Phoenix Lodge No. 708, Loyal Order of Moose, Inc. 928 P.2d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Co., , 269 n. 5, , 673 n. 5 (1994).
Little v. ALL PHOENIX S. COM. MENT. HLTH. 919 P.2d 1368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Little v. ALL PHOENIX S. COM. MENT. HLTH. 919 P.2d 1368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Co., , (citations omitted).
Wicks v. Motor Vehicle Division 908 P.2d 1092 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Wicks v. Motor Vehicle Division 908 P.2d 1092 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Little v. All Phoenix South Community Mental Health Center, Inc. 919 P.2d 1368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
Little v. All Phoenix South Community Mental Health Center, Inc. 919 P.2d 1368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
Co., , (citations omitted).
Fry's Food Stores of Arizona, Inc. v. Mather & Associates, Inc. 900 P.2d 1225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Fry's Food Stores of Arizona, Inc. v. Mather & Associates, Inc. 900 P.2d 1225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
: 1) When statutory language reasonably permits an alternative construction, avoid construing the statute in a way that renders it unconstitutional; 2) Unless the legislature makes explicit an abrogative or preemptive purpose, avoid construing a statute in a manner that preempts or abrogates a com
Mohave Disposal, Inc. v. City of Kingman 909 P.2d 435 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Mohave Disposal, Inc. v. City of Kingman 909 P.2d 435 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Business Realty of Arizona, Inc. v. Maricopa County 892 P.2d 1340 Ariz. 1995
Business Realty of Arizona, Inc. v. Maricopa County 892 P.2d 1340 Ariz. 1995
Ward v. State 890 P.2d 1144 Ariz. 1995
Ward v. State 890 P.2d 1144 Ariz. 1995
Co., , Stramka v. Salt River Recreation, Inc.
Jett v. City of Tucson 882 P.2d 426 Ariz. 1994
Jett v. City of Tucson 882 P.2d 426 Ariz. 1994
Co., , (discussing reluctance to imply preemption absent clear expression of legislative intent).
America West Airlines, Inc. v. Deparment of Revenue 880 P.2d 1074 Ariz. 1994
America West Airlines, Inc. v. Deparment of Revenue 880 P.2d 1074 Ariz. 1994
Co., , (“[W]e are reluctant to interpret a statute in favor of ...
Stramka v. Salt River Recreation, Inc. 877 P.2d 1339 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Stramka v. Salt River Recreation, Inc. 877 P.2d 1339 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Co., , (stating that Arizona courts are reluctant to interpret statutes in favor of denying or preempting tort claims); see also Walker, 163 Ariz. at 211 , 786 P.2d at 1062 (applying strict construction of Arizona’s recreational use statute).
State v. Buhman 887 P.2d 582 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Buhman 887 P.2d 582 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Co., -74 , -78 (App.,1994).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by