Cited by

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

279 citing documents.

In Re Moises L. 18 P.3d 1231 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
We seek to determine legislative intent by considering “the statute’s context, subject matter, historical background, effects and consequences, and spirit and purpose.” , , 1230 *434 (1996).
State v. Derello 18 P.3d 1234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Derello 18 P.3d 1234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
In construing a statute, our goal is “to fulfill the intent of the legislature that wrote it.” , ( , ).
Keenen v. Biles 17 P.3d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Keenen v. Biles 17 P.3d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Estrada 4 P.3d 438 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Estrada 4 P.3d 438 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Thompson 7 P.3d 151 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Thompson 7 P.3d 151 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
(interpreting the intended meaning of “historical prior felony conviction” in section 13-604(U)(l)(a)).
State v. Thomas 996 P.2d 113 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Thomas 996 P.2d 113 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
and by considering factors such as the statute’s context, subject matter, historical background, effects and consequences, and spirit and purpose.”
Leonard H. v. Beneficial Arizona, Inc. 977 P.2d 784 Ariz. 1999
Leonard H. v. Beneficial Arizona, Inc. 977 P.2d 784 Ariz. 1999
When an ambiguity exists, however, we attempt to determine legislative intent by interpreting the statute as a whole, and consider “the statute’s context, subject matter, historical background, effects and consequences, and spirit and purpose.”
Estancia Development Associates, L.L.C. v. City of Scottsdale 993 P.2d 1051 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Estancia Development Associates, L.L.C. v. City of Scottsdale 993 P.2d 1051 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Mail Boxes, Etc. v. Industrial Comm’n
PhxAz Ltd. Partnership v. Maricopa County 967 P.2d 1026 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
PhxAz Ltd. Partnership v. Maricopa County 967 P.2d 1026 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
(court’s goal is to fulfill intent of legislature that wrote statute); Hayes v. Continental Ins.
Merrick v. Lewis 964 P.2d 473 Ariz. 1998
Merrick v. Lewis 964 P.2d 473 Ariz. 1998
(court must interpret apparently conflicting statutes harmoniously if possible); , (when statutory language is not clear, court will consider the statute’s context, subject matter, historical background, effects and consequences, and spirit and purpose).
State v. Malvern 962 P.2d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
State v. Malvern 962 P.2d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
and by considering factors such as the statute’s context, subject matter, historical background, effects and consequences, and spirit and purpose.’”
STATE EX REL. ARIZ. DEPT. OF REV. v. Short 965 P.2d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
STATE EX REL. ARIZ. DEPT. OF REV. v. Short 965 P.2d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Riggs 942 P.2d 1159 Ariz. 1997
State v. Riggs 942 P.2d 1159 Ariz. 1997
State v. Garcia 943 P.2d 870 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Garcia 943 P.2d 870 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Lewis v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 925 P.2d 751 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Lewis v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 925 P.2d 751 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Fox v. The New Phoenix Auto Auction, Ltd.