Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Zamora v. Reinstein, 915 P.2d 1227.

279 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Hon. Kyle Bryson Gilbert Delgado 541 P.3d 582 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
State of Arizona v. Hon. Kyle Bryson Gilbert Delgado 541 P.3d 582 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
However, if the text is ambiguous, we determine the meaning “by reading the statute as a whole, giving meaningful operation to all of its provisions, and by considering factors such as the statute’s context, subject matter, historical background, effects and consequences, and spirit and purpose.” ().
State v. Hon covil/morales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Hon covil/morales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
In the case of ambiguity, we determine meaning “by reading the [rule] as a whole, giving meaningful operation to all of its provisions, and by considering factors such as the [rule]’s context, subject matter, historical background, effects and consequences, and spirit and purpose.”
In Re: A. Strickland Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
In Re: A. Strickland Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
“We review this issue de novo because it involves statutory construction and thus presents a question of law.”
State v. Chandler 418 P.3d 1109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Chandler 418 P.3d 1109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Givens , , ¶ 6, quoting Zamora v. Reinstein , , 275, , 1230 (1996).
Betancourt v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Betancourt v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Gila River Indian Community v. Department of Child Safety 379 P.3d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Gric v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Gila River Indian Community v. Department of Child Safety 379 P.3d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Gric v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Walker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Walker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(when interpreting a statute, appellate court looks to its plain language as the best indicator of legislative intent).
Amanda Watts v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation 365 P.3d 944 Ariz. 2016
Amanda Watts v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation 365 P.3d 944 Ariz. 2016
State v. Panos 366 P.3d 1006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Panos 366 P.3d 1006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Derienzo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Derienzo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Reyes 360 P.3d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Reyes 360 P.3d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Pledger 341 P.3d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Pledger 341 P.3d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State of Arizona v. Anthony Lewis 340 P.3d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Anthony Lewis 340 P.3d 415 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
“If a statute is ambiguous, we consider ‘the statute’s context, subject matter, historical background, effects and consequences, and spirit and purpose.’” -83 (App. 2011)
State v. Piotrowski 315 P.3d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Piotrowski 315 P.3d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Grady v. Barth 312 P.3d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Grady v. Barth 312 P.3d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
(court determines legislative intent by reading statute as a whole and by considering factors such as statute’s context, subject matter, and historical background); Maricopa Cnty.
First Credit Union v. Courtney 309 P.3d 929 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
First Credit Union v. Courtney 309 P.3d 929 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Tynerial Ray Kindred 307 P.3d 1038 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Tynerial Ray Kindred 307 P.3d 1038 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
But, “[i]f a statute is ambiguous, we consider ‘the statute’s context, subject matter, historical 3 background, effects and consequences, and spirit and purpose.’” State v. Fikes, 228 Ariz. 389, ¶ 6, -83 (App. 2011), quoting Zamora v. Reinstein, 185 Ariz. 272, 275
Melendez v. Hallmark Insurance 305 P.3d 392 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Pima County Human Rights Committee v. Arizona Department of Health Services 303 P.3d 71 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Pima County Human Rights Committee v. Arizona Department of Health Services 303 P.3d 71 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Villa de Jardines Ass’n v. Flagstar Bank, FSB
Kahn v. Arizona Medical Board 300 P.3d 552 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Kahn v. Arizona Medical Board 300 P.3d 552 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Summers Group, Inc. v. Tempe Mechanical, LLC 299 P.3d 743 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Summers Group, Inc. v. Tempe Mechanical, LLC 299 P.3d 743 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
“[W]e determine legislative intent by reading the statute as a whole, giving meaningful operation to all of its provisions, and by considering factors such as the statute’s context, subject matter, [and] historical background....”
State v. Bayardi 281 P.3d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State v. Bayardi 281 P.3d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S v. Holdings, L.L.C. 276 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Cal X-Tra v. W.V.S v. Holdings, L.L.C. 276 P.3d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Gold v. HELVETICA SERVICING, INC. 275 P.3d 627 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Gold v. HELVETICA SERVICING, INC. 275 P.3d 627 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Sedona Grand, LLC v. City of Sedona 270 P.3d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012