Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite San Carlos Apache Tribe v. Superior Court, 972 P.2d 179.

127 citing documents.

State v. Montes 223 P.3d 681 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Montes 223 P.3d 681 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
holding that the legislature may not overrule a judicial interpretation of a statute and apply it on a retroactive basis, the Murray court stated that “ ‘any attempt by the Arizona Legislature to adjudicate pending cases by defining existing law and applying it to fact is prohibited.’ ” ¶¶ 8, 9 , 982 P.2d at 1289 (emphasis added), , ¶¶ 26, 30 , 238 (1999) (finding preamble to Employment Protection Act, which purported to invalidate supreme court’s , “devoid of
Turken v. Gordon 207 P.3d 709 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Turken v. Gordon 207 P.3d 709 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
As our supreme court has stated: “The legislature cannot by legislation destroy the constitutional limits on its authority.” ¶ 52
Enterprise Leasing Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 211 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Enterprise Leasing Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 211 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
( , ); see generally 2 C. Sands, Sutherland Statutory Construction § 41.11, at 289-90 (4th ed.1973) (cited in Canisius College v. United States, 799 F.2d 18, 27 (2d Cir.1986)) (curative legislation is typically entitled to a liberal construction); ¶ 30 , (the suggestion that the 1995 legislature can clarify what an earlier legislature in 1919 or 1974 intended carries us “into the world of speculation”).
State of Arizona v. Alvin Edward Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Alvin Edward Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
¶ 6, quoting San Carlos Apache Tribe v. Superior Court, 193 Ariz. 195, 205
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. 181 P.3d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. 181 P.3d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Rather, “legislation may not disturb vested substantive rights by retroactively changing the law that applies to completed events.”
State v. Aguilar 178 P.3d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State v. Aguilar 178 P.3d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Rather, “legislation may not disturb vested substantive rights by retroactively changing the law that applies to completed events.”
In Re General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Gila River System 173 P.3d 440 Ariz. 2007
In Re General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Gila River System 173 P.3d 440 Ariz. 2007
Yes on Prop 200 v. Napolitano 160 P.3d 1216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Yes on Prop 200 v. Napolitano 160 P.3d 1216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
County of Maricopa, ¶ 37 , (“The power to define existing law, including common law, and to apply it to facts rests exclusively within the judicial branch.”); Chevron Chem.
State v. Gum 153 P.3d 418 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Gum 153 P.3d 418 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Garcia v. Browning 151 P.3d 533 Ariz. 2007
Garcia v. Browning 151 P.3d 533 Ariz. 2007
¶ 15, (citing Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 270; ¶ 15, ); see also Tower Plaza Invs.
David Garcia v. State of Arizona 146 P.3d 1007 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
David Garcia v. State of Arizona 146 P.3d 1007 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
See State v. Murray, 194 Ariz. 373, 374-75, -89 (1999) (“[T]he legislature’s intent about retroactive application ‘does not end our analysis.’”)
In Re Commitment of Paul Frankovitch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
In Re Commitment of Paul Frankovitch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Freight Sys., Inc., quoting Steinfeld v. 3 Nielsen, 139 P. 879, 896 (1913); P.2d 179 (1999).
Naslund v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZ. 110 P.3d 363 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Naslund v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZ. 110 P.3d 363 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
As our supreme court has explained, “legislation may not disturb vested substantive rights by retroactively changing the law that applies to completed events.” ¶ 15
Marriage of Cook v. Cook 104 P.3d 857 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Marriage of Cook v. Cook 104 P.3d 857 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
“A statute that is merely procedural may be applied retroactively.” San Carlos Apache Tribe v. Superi- or Court (Bolton), ¶ 15 , (citation omitted).
State v. Fell 97 P.3d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Fell 97 P.3d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
the court held that the legislature could not retroactively amend A.R.S.
Bennett v. Brownlow 90 P.3d 1245 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Bennett v. Brownlow 90 P.3d 1245 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
O'BRIEN v. Escher 65 P.3d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
O'BRIEN v. Escher 65 P.3d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Anderson v. Industrial Commission 72 P.3d 341 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Anderson v. Industrial Commission 72 P.3d 341 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
at 473, ¶ 28 , 11 P.3d at 1012 ( ¶ 16 , ).
Jeremy Sean O'Brien v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Jeremy Sean O'Brien v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State v. Thompson 65 P.3d 420 Ariz. 2003
State v. Thompson 65 P.3d 420 Ariz. 2003
¶ 10 Moreover, when considering a constitutional challenge to a statute, we begin with the premise that the statute is constitutional, ¶ 11 , and we construe it “so as to preserve [its] constitutionality wherever possible.” *475 202
State v. Griffin 58 P.3d 516 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Griffin 58 P.3d 516 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
¶ 7 Section 1-244 provides that “[n]o statute is retroactive unless expressly declared therein.” In other words, “ § 1-244 requires an express statement of retroactive intent before a statute will be considered retroactive.”
Moschcau v. Mohave County 48 P.3d 1212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Moschcau v. Mohave County 48 P.3d 1212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Mejia v. Industrial Commission 39 P.3d 1135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Mejia v. Industrial Commission 39 P.3d 1135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Vested property rights are no less so merely because they may be altered by future events
Strojnik v. General Insurance Co. of America 36 P.3d 1200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Strojnik v. General Insurance Co. of America 36 P.3d 1200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Andrews v. Willrich 29 P.3d 880 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Andrews v. Willrich 29 P.3d 880 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
County of Maricopa, ¶ 37 , , (“The separation of powers does not require a ‘hermetic sealing off' of the three branches of government.”).