Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Williams v. Thude, 934 P.2d 1349.

78 citing documents.

Dowling v. Stapley 179 P.3d 960 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
(“Each word, phrase, clause, and sentence [of a statute] must be given meaning so that no part will be void, inert, redundant or trivial.”) (alteration in original) (emphasis omitted) ( , ).
Deer Valley Unified School District No. 97 v. Houser 152 P.3d 490 Ariz. 2007
Deer Valley Unified School District No. 97 v. Houser 152 P.3d 490 Ariz. 2007
“Each word, phrase, clause, and sentence [of a statute] must be given meaning so that no part will be void, inert, redundant, or trivial.” (alteration in original) (emphasis omitted) ( ).
In Re Gina Manny Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
In Re Gina Manny Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Williams v. Thude, 188 Ariz. 257, 258, (“‘Each word, phrase, clause, and sentence of a statute must be given meaning so that no part will be void, inert, redundant, or trivial.’”) (emphasis omitted)
Romero v. Southwest Ambulance, rural/metro, City of Tucson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
P.2d 1096 (App. 1994), aff’d, P.2d 1349 (1997).
Armenta v. City of Casa Grande 71 P.3d 359 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Armenta v. City of Casa Grande 71 P.3d 359 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
aff 'd, , : Gross, willful, or wanton conduct is action or inaction with reckless indifference to the result or the rights or safety of others.
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
(“Each word, phrase, clause, and sentence [of a statute] must be given meaning so that no part will be void, inert, redundant, or trivial.”) (citation and emphasis omitted); ¶ 19 , (principles of statutory constru
Gunnell v. Arizona Public Service Co. 46 P.3d 399 Ariz. 2002
Gunnell v. Arizona Public Service Co. 46 P.3d 399 Ariz. 2002
P.2d 1096 (App. 1994), approved and explained in Williams v. Thude (Williams II), 188 Ariz. 257, 260
S Development Co. v. Pima Capital Management Co. 31 P.3d 123 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
review granted in part (1994), aff'd, , Ariz. R. Civ.
Gunnell v. Arizona Public Service Co. 18 P.3d 176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Englert v. Carondelet Health Network 13 P.3d 763 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Englert v. Carondelet Health Network 13 P.3d 763 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
(“[T]he ‘fundamental error’ doctrine should be used sparingly, if at all, in civil cases.”); Hall v. A.N.R.
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
§ 13-603(A), it would have been unnecessary for the legislature to have specified that forfeiture is effective only after conviction, , (construing statute so that no part will be void, inert, redundant or trivial).
Badia v. City of Casa Grande 988 P.2d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Badia v. City of Casa Grande 988 P.2d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Luchanski v. Officer J.L. Congrove 971 P.2d 636 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Luchanski v. Officer J.L. Congrove 971 P.2d 636 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
“Gross negligence and wanton conduct have generally been treated as one and the same.”
Larsen v. Nissan Motor Corp. in U.S.A. 978 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Larsen v. Nissan Motor Corp. in U.S.A. 978 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
(before 1984 adoption of comparative fault, “[a]s a practical matter, ...
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
¶27 We believe that the recording of the deed is not, by itself, sufficient to require valuation under section 42-146(A) because such a , (“Each word, phrase, clause, and sentence [of a statute] must be given meaning so that no part will be void, inert, redundant, or trivial.” [citation omitted]).
Hutcherson v. City of Phoenix 961 P.2d 449 Ariz. 1998
Hutcherson v. City of Phoenix 961 P.2d 449 Ariz. 1998