Cited by

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

279 citing documents.

In Re the Commitment of Taylor 78 P.3d 1076 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
In Re the Commitment of Taylor 78 P.3d 1076 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Commitment of Olin Gene Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State v. Givens 76 P.3d 457 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State v. Givens 76 P.3d 457 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Scottsdale Healthcare, Inc. v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System Administration 75 P.3d 91 Ariz. 2003
Scottsdale Healthcare, Inc. v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System Administration 75 P.3d 91 Ariz. 2003
State of Arizona v. Lenny M. Box Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Lenny M. Box Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State v. Siner 69 P.3d 1022 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Siner 69 P.3d 1022 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Christian 66 P.3d 1241 Ariz. 2003
State v. Christian 66 P.3d 1241 Ariz. 2003
GARDEN LAKES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC. v. Madigan 62 P.3d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
GARDEN LAKES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC. v. Madigan 62 P.3d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Mitchell 62 P.3d 616 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Mitchell 62 P.3d 616 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
272, 275, State v. Christian, 202 Aiz.
State v. Viramontes 64 P.3d 188 Ariz. 2003
State v. Viramontes 64 P.3d 188 Ariz. 2003
Wilmot v. Wilmot 58 P.3d 507 Ariz. 2002
Wilmot v. Wilmot 58 P.3d 507 Ariz. 2002
Powers v. Carpenter 51 P.3d 338 Ariz. 2002
Powers v. Carpenter 51 P.3d 338 Ariz. 2002
State v. Christian 47 P.3d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Christian 47 P.3d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Cabrera 44 P.3d 174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Cabrera 44 P.3d 174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Tousignant 43 P.3d 218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Tousignant 43 P.3d 218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
In Re Ryan A. 39 P.3d 543 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
In Re Ryan A. 39 P.3d 543 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
(“When construing statutes, our goal is ‘to fulfill the intent of the legislature that wrote it.’ ” ( , )).
Hurley Trucking Co. v. State ex rel. Arizona Department of Transportation 39 P.3d 527 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Hurley Trucking Co. v. State ex rel. Arizona Department of Transportation 39 P.3d 527 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Hensley 31 P.3d 848 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Hensley 31 P.3d 848 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Roman 30 P.3d 661 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Roman 30 P.3d 661 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Unum Life Insurance Co. of America v. Craig 26 P.3d 510 Ariz. 2001
State v. Tschilar 27 P.3d 331 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Tschilar 27 P.3d 331 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Unum Life Insurance Co. of America v. Craig 26 P.3d 510 Ariz. 2001
an ambiguity or contradiction exists, however, we attempt to determine legislative intent by interpreting the statutory scheme as a whole and consider “the statute’s context, subject matter, historical background, effects and consequences, and spirit and purpose.” Aros v. Beneficial Ariz., Inc., , (internal citations omitted) ( , ).
Camelback Plaza Development, L.C. v. Hard Rock Café International (Phoenix), Inc. 25 P.3d 8 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Camelback Plaza Development, L.C. v. Hard Rock Café International (Phoenix), Inc. 25 P.3d 8 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Skiba 19 P.3d 1255 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Skiba 19 P.3d 1255 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
*541 DISCUSSION ¶ 8 In construing a statute, our goal is “to fulfill the intent of the legislature that wrote it.”
State v. Guillory 18 P.3d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Guillory 18 P.3d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Bomar 19 P.3d 613 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Bomar 19 P.3d 613 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
“When 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.”
In Re Moises L. 18 P.3d 1231 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001