Cited by

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

279 citing documents.

State v. Slayton 154 P.3d 1057 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
(holding that the interpretation of a statute is a question of law).
Copper Hills Enterprises, Ltd. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 153 P.3d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Copper Hills Enterprises, Ltd. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 153 P.3d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Reinstein 150 P.3d 782 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Reinstein 150 P.3d 782 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
539 ¶ 20, (‘We interpret statutes according to their plain meaning.” (Citation omitted.)).
State ex rel. Thomas v. Talamante 149 P.3d 484 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State ex rel. Thomas v. Talamante 149 P.3d 484 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State ex rel. Department of Economic Security v. Demetz 130 P.3d 986 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State ex rel. Department of Economic Security v. Demetz 130 P.3d 986 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Cornman Tweedy 560, LLC v. City of Casa Grande 137 P.3d 309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Cornman Tweedy 560, LLC v. City of Casa Grande 137 P.3d 309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Foster v. Weir Orthodontic Centers of Arizona, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Foster v. Weir Orthodontic Centers of Arizona, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
(applying rules of statutory construction to interpret ambiguous procedural rules).
In Re Gina Manny Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
In Re Gina Manny Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Abdulkadir Hourani v. Benson Hospital Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Abdulkadir Hourani v. Benson Hospital Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
When an ambiguity exists, however, we attempt to determine legislative intent by considering “the statute’s context, subject matter, historical background, effects and consequences, and spirit and purpose.”
Joffe v. Acacia Mortgage Corp. 121 P.3d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Joffe v. Acacia Mortgage Corp. 121 P.3d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Admin., ¶ 10 , ( , )(“[W]e first look to the language of the statute itself.
LINDA v. v. ARIZONA DEPT. OF ECONOMIC SEC. 117 P.3d 795 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
LINDA v. v. ARIZONA DEPT. OF ECONOMIC SEC. 117 P.3d 795 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Aros, 194 Ariz. at 66 , 977 P.2d at 788 ( , ).
Ziemak v. Schnakenberg 111 P.3d 1042 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Ziemak v. Schnakenberg 111 P.3d 1042 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Aros v. Beneficial Ariz., Inc.
Renee Antonio Fragoso v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Renee Antonio Fragoso v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
DaimlerChrysler Services North America, LLC v. Arizona Department of Revenue 110 P.3d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
DaimlerChrysler Services North America, LLC v. Arizona Department of Revenue 110 P.3d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
SFPP, L.P. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 108 P.3d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
SFPP, L.P. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 108 P.3d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Maricopa County v. Kinko’s Inc., ¶ 4
Parrot v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. 108 P.3d 922 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Parrot v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. 108 P.3d 922 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Barraza 104 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Stroud 103 P.3d 912 Ariz. 2005
State v. Stroud 103 P.3d 912 Ariz. 2005
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
(cardinal rule in statutory interpretation is to ascertain and give effect to legislature’s intent).
Riepe v. Riepe 91 P.3d 312 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Oppido 88 P.3d 180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Oppido 88 P.3d 180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
O'CONNOR v. Hyatt 87 P.3d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
O'CONNOR v. Hyatt 87 P.3d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Martineau v. Maricopa County 86 P.3d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Martineau v. Maricopa County 86 P.3d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
We begin our analysis with the plain language of the pertinent statute, , because a statute’s plain language provides the best evidence of intent.
Bilke v. State 80 P.3d 269 Ariz. 2003
Bilke v. State 80 P.3d 269 Ariz. 2003
Zamora v. Reinstein, 185 Ariz. 272, 275
State v. Gonzales 80 P.3d 276 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Gonzales 80 P.3d 276 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
instructions to the jury properly state[ ] the law.”); , (explaining that issues of statutory construction are questions of law, which are reviewed de novo).
In Re Maricopa County Superior Court No. Mh2003-000240 78 P.3d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
In Re Maricopa County Superior Court No. Mh2003-000240 78 P.3d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Commitment of Olin Gene Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003