Cited by

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

279 citing documents.

Sedona Grand, LLC v. City of Sedona 270 P.3d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State of Arizona v. Aaron Raymond Fikes 267 P.3d 1181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Aaron Raymond Fikes 267 P.3d 1181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
3 If a statute is ambiguous, we consider “the statute‟s context, subject matter, historical background, effects and consequences, and spirit and purpose.”
Bridgestone Retail Tire Operations v. Industrial Commission 258 P.3d 271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Bridgestone Retail Tire Operations v. Industrial Commission 258 P.3d 271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Alex Paul Rasmussen v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Alex Paul Rasmussen v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
In Re Marriage of Gibbs 258 P.3d 221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Gibbs v. Gibbs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
In Re Marriage of Gibbs 258 P.3d 221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
We interpret statutes with the goal of “ ‘fulfilling] the intent of the legislature.’ ” , , 1230 *408 (1996)
Gibbs v. Gibbs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
We interpret statutes with the goal of “„fulfill[ing] the intent of the legislature.‟”
Walsh v. Advanced Cardiac Specialists Chartered 258 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Walsh v. Advanced Cardiac Specialists Chartered 258 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
“We first consider the statute’s language ‘because we ex *358 pect it to be the best and most reliable index of a statute’s meaning.’ ” , ( , ).
In Re Eddie O. 253 P.3d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
In Re Eddie O. 253 P.3d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
However, when the plain language of the statute does not unambiguously address the question presented, “we 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, historical background, effects and consequences, and spirit and purpose.”
Villa De Jardines Ass'n v. Flagstar Bank, FSB 253 P.3d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Villa De Jardines Ass'n v. Flagstar Bank, FSB 253 P.3d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
In interpreting statutes “our goal is to ‘fulfill the intent of the legislature.’ ”
State v. Bolding 253 P.3d 279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. Bolding 253 P.3d 279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
(claims concerning constitutionality of statutes reviewed de novo); , (interpretation of statute question of law subject to de novo review).
LEVERAGED LAND CO., LLC v. Hodges 249 P.3d 341 Ariz. 2011
LEVERAGED LAND CO., LLC v. Hodges 249 P.3d 341 Ariz. 2011
State of Arizona v. Hesam Mohajerin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Hesam Mohajerin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
If the language is subject to more than one interpretation, however, “we 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, historical background, effects and consequences, and spirit and purpose.”
CNL Hotels & Resorts, Inc. v. Maricopa County 244 P.3d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
CNL Hotels & Resorts, Inc. v. Maricopa County 244 P.3d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
The County’s expert conceded that this interpretation renders class nine a “vacant class.” ¶ 12 In construing a statute, our goal is “to fulfill the intent of the legislature that wrote it.” , ( , ).
In Re Pinal County Mental Health No. Mh-201000029 240 P.3d 1262 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
In Re Pinal County Mental Health No. Mh-201000029 240 P.3d 1262 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
If the language of a statute is not clear, we “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, historical background, effects and consequences, and spirit and purpose.”
State v. Simmons 240 P.3d 279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Simmons 240 P.3d 279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
s language is not clear, we 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, historical background, effects and consequences, and spirit and purpose.’ ” ¶ 16 , ( , ).
Porter v. Spader 239 P.3d 743 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Porter v. Spader 239 P.3d 743 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
In Re Estate of Winn 237 P.3d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
In Re Estate of Winn 237 P.3d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State of Arizona v. John George Ponsart Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. John George Ponsart Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Christensen, but if “the statute‟s language is not clear, we 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, historical background, effects and consequences, and spirit and purpose.”
State v. Weiss 232 P.3d 1259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Weiss 232 P.3d 1259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Arizona Navigable Stream Adjudication Commission 229 P.3d 242 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Arizona Navigable Stream Adjudication Commission 229 P.3d 242 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
SOLIMENO v. Yonan 227 P.3d 481 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
SOLIMENO v. Yonan 227 P.3d 481 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Bennett James L. Bennett Money Purchase Pension Plan Meyerstein v. Baxter Group Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Bennett James L. Bennett Money Purchase Pension Plan Meyerstein v. Baxter Group Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
See Ramsey Air Meds, 198 Ariz. 10, ¶ 12, 6 P.3d at 318; (issues of statutory construction reviewed de novo).
Lebaron Properties, LLC v. Jeffrey S. Kaufman, Ltd. 221 P.3d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Lebaron Properties, LLC v. Jeffrey S. Kaufman, Ltd. 221 P.3d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
(statutory construction and interpretation is a question of law, which we review de novo).
Industrial Commission v. Old Republic Insurance 219 P.3d 285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Industrial Commission v. Old Republic Insurance 219 P.3d 285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
We will first consider the statutory language, which provides “the best and most reliable index of a statute’s meaning.”
State v. LYCHWICK 218 P.3d 1061 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. LYCHWICK 218 P.3d 1061 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
John D. Kaufmann v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009