Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Canon School District No. 50 v. W.E.S. Construction Co., 869 P.2d 500.

198 citing documents.

Heatec, Inc. v. R.W. Beckett Corp. 197 P.3d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Heatec, Inc. v. R.W. Beckett Corp. 197 P.3d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Dowling v. Stapley 179 P.3d 960 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Dowling v. Stapley 179 P.3d 960 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Thomas 175 P.3d 71 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Southwest Airlines Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 175 P.3d 700 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Southwest Airlines Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 175 P.3d 700 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
National Bank of Arizona v. Thruston 180 P.3d 977 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
National Bank of Arizona v. Thruston 180 P.3d 977 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Cundiff v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 174 P.3d 270 Ariz. 2008
Cundiff v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 174 P.3d 270 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
Co., , (“Where the [statutory] language is plain and unambiguous, courts must generally follow the text as written.”).
Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System v. Allen 173 P.3d 448 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System v. Allen 173 P.3d 448 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State ex rel. Thomas v. Duncan 165 P.3d 238 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State ex rel. Thomas v. Duncan 165 P.3d 238 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Questar Southern Trails Pipeline Co. 161 P.3d 620 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Questar Southern Trails Pipeline Co. 161 P.3d 620 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
In Re Estate of Rodriguez 160 P.3d 679 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Followed In Re Estate of Rodriguez 160 P.3d 679 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Bill Parrot v. Daimlerchrysler Corporation Ariz. 2006
Bill Parrot v. Daimlerchrysler Corporation Ariz. 2006
Parrot v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. 130 P.3d 530 Ariz. 2006
Parrot v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. 130 P.3d 530 Ariz. 2006
Myers v. City of Tempe 128 P.3d 751 Ariz. 2006
Myers v. City of Tempe 128 P.3d 751 Ariz. 2006
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Arizona Department of Water Resources 118 P.3d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Arizona Department of Water Resources 118 P.3d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Primary Consultants, L.L.C. v. Maricopa County Recorder 111 P.3d 435 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Primary Consultants, L.L.C. v. Maricopa County Recorder 111 P.3d 435 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
In Re Estate of Jung 109 P.3d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
In Re Estate of Jung 109 P.3d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Parrot v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. 108 P.3d 922 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Parrot v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. 108 P.3d 922 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Co., Inc., , (noting that, when a statute’s “language is plain and unambiguous, courts generally must follow the text as written”); , (expecting the statute’s own language to be “the best and most reliable index of a statute’s mean
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. 105 P.3d 1163 Ariz. 2005
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. 105 P.3d 1163 Ariz. 2005
Carl Seel v. Tim Sifert Ariz. 2004
Carl Seel v. Tim Sifert Ariz. 2004
North Valley Emergency, Specialists, L.L.C. v. Santana 93 P.3d 501 Ariz. 2004
North Valley Emergency, Specialists, L.L.C. v. Santana 93 P.3d 501 Ariz. 2004
Maycock v. Asilomar Development, Inc. 88 P.3d 565 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Maycock v. Asilomar Development, Inc. 88 P.3d 565 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State Ex Rel. Department of Revenue v. Capitol Castings, Inc. 88 P.3d 159 Ariz. 2004
State Ex Rel. Department of Revenue v. Capitol Castings, Inc. 88 P.3d 159 Ariz. 2004
Bilke v. State 80 P.3d 269 Ariz. 2003
Bilke v. State 80 P.3d 269 Ariz. 2003
Lindsay v. Cave Creek Outfitters, L.L.C. 88 P.3d 557 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Lindsay v. Cave Creek Outfitters, L.L.C. 88 P.3d 557 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Const. Co., , (explaining that fundamental to statutory interpretation “is the presumption that what the legislature means, it will say” (quoting Padilla v. Indus.
Blankenbaker v. Jonovich 71 P.3d 910 Ariz. 2003