Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Mail Boxes v. Industrial Commission, 888 P.2d 777.

187 citing documents.

Maycock v. Asilomar Development, Inc. 88 P.3d 565 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Arizona Elec. Power Co-Op., Inc. 83 P.3d 573 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Arizona Elec. Power Co-Op., Inc. 83 P.3d 573 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Comm'n of Arizona, , (noting primary goal in construing statute is to fulfill intent of legislature).
State v. Akins 75 P.3d 718 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Akins 75 P.3d 718 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Blankenbaker v. Jonovich 71 P.3d 910 Ariz. 2003
Blankenbaker v. Jonovich 71 P.3d 910 Ariz. 2003
Comm’n of Ariz., (courts should interpret statutes so as to avoid absurd results).
Sanderson Lincoln Mercury, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co. 68 P.3d 428 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Sanderson Lincoln Mercury, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co. 68 P.3d 428 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
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
Hohokam Irrigation & Drainage District v. Arizona Public Service Co. 64 P.3d 836 Ariz. 2003
Hohokam Irrigation & Drainage District v. Arizona Public Service Co. 64 P.3d 836 Ariz. 2003
Scruggs v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 62 P.3d 989 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Scruggs v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 62 P.3d 989 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Hanley v. Pearson 61 P.3d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Hanley v. Pearson 61 P.3d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Logan v. Forever Living Products International, Inc. 52 P.3d 760 Ariz. 2002
Logan v. Forever Living Products International, Inc. 52 P.3d 760 Ariz. 2002
Mail Boxes, Etc., U.S.A v. Industrial Comm’n
People's Choice TV Corp. v. City of Tucson 46 P.3d 412 Ariz. 2002
People's Choice TV Corp. v. City of Tucson 46 P.3d 412 Ariz. 2002
State v. Estrada 34 P.3d 356 Ariz. 2001
State v. Estrada 34 P.3d 356 Ariz. 2001
v. Industrial Comm’n, , (“Where language is unambiguous, it is normally conclusive, absent a clearly expressed legislative intent to the contrary.”); , (“[I]t is a basic ‘tenet of statutory construction that where the statutory language is unamb
Taylor v. Graham County Chamber of Commerce 33 P.3d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Taylor v. Graham County Chamber of Commerce 33 P.3d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
“We focus first on the statutory wording and, if it is ambiguous or inconclusive, we consider the statute’s ‘con *188 text, subject matter, historical background, effects, consequences, spirit, and purpose.”’ Bothell, , , quoting Mail Boxes, etc. v. Industrial Comm’n
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Dougherty 29 P.3d 862 Ariz. 2001
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Dougherty 29 P.3d 862 Ariz. 2001
Comm’n, , (“unambiguous language is normally conclusive, absent a clearly expressed contrary legislative intent.”).
Unum Life Insurance Co. of America v. Craig 26 P.3d 510 Ariz. 2001
Unum Life Insurance Co. of America v. Craig 26 P.3d 510 Ariz. 2001
True v. Stewart 18 P.3d 707 Ariz. 2001
HCZ Construction Inc. v. First Franklin Financial Corp. 18 P.3d 155 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
HCZ Construction Inc. v. First Franklin Financial Corp. 18 P.3d 155 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Comm’n, , (citation omitted).
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
Comm’n, , Devenir Assocs.
Walter v. Wilkinson 10 P.3d 1218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Walter v. Wilkinson 10 P.3d 1218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Comm’n, , ), and to interpret the statute so as to give it a fair and sensible meaning.
State v. Affordable Bail Bonds 6 P.3d 339 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Affordable Bail Bonds 6 P.3d 339 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
‘Where language is unambiguous, it is normally conclusive, absent a clear expressed legislative intent to the contrary.” Mail Boxes Etc., USA v. Industrial Comm’n
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
Mail Boxes v. Industrial Comm’n
Davis v. Arizona Department of Revenue 4 P.3d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Davis v. Arizona Department of Revenue 4 P.3d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
A. Statutory Interpretation ¶ 9 “The primary rule of statutory construction is to find and give effect to legislative intent.” Mail Boxes, Etc. v. Industrial Comm’n of Arizona
Herman v. City of Tucson 4 P.3d 973 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Herman v. City of Tucson 4 P.3d 973 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 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
In interpreting statutes, our primary mission is “to find and give effect to legislative intent.” Mail Boxes, Etc. v. Industrial Comm’n
Aranda v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 989 P.2d 157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Aranda v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 989 P.2d 157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
v. Industrial Comm’n, , see Madrid v. Industrial Comm’n, -10 , -43 (App.1994).
Lavidas v. Smith 987 P.2d 212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Lavidas v. Smith 987 P.2d 212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999