Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite In re a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Marquardt, 821 P.2d 161.

43 citing documents.

Brenda D. v. Department of Child Safety 393 P.3d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
v. City of Phoenix, , ).
Claudia Patricia Higuera v. State of Arizona 383 P.3d 1150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
v. City of Phoenix, (“The court must, if possible, give meaning to each clause and word in the statute or rule to avoid rendering anything superfluous, void, contradictory, or insignificant.”).
Gila River Indian Community v. Department of Child Safety 379 P.3d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
v. City of Phoenix, , 503, , 164 (1991); Garza Rodriguez, 164 Ariz. at 112 , 791 P.2d at 638
Courtney v. Hon. foster/courtney 334 P.3d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Munger Chadwick, P.L.C. v. Farwest Development & Construction of the Southwest, LLC 329 P.3d 229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
v. City of Phoenix, (court rules must be interpreted “to avoid rendering anything superfluous, void, contradictory, or insignificant”).
State of Arizona v. Louis John Felix 317 P.3d 1185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Balestrieri v. Balestrieri 300 P.3d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Lund v. Myers 286 P.3d 789 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
v. City of Phx., , (noting that we strive to give meaningful application to all of a rule’s provisions).
Town of Marana v. Pima County 281 P.3d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Madison v. Groseth 279 P.3d 633 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
v. City of Phoenix, , (“The court must, if possible, give meaning to each clause and word in the statute or rule to avoid rendering anything superfluous, void, contradictory, or insignificant.”).
Blevins v. Government Employees Insurance 258 P.3d 274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
v. City of Phx., , (“The court must, if possible, give meaning to each clause and word in the statute or rule to avoid rendering anything superfluous, void, contradictory, or insignificant.”).
Carol Ann Potter Debra Joy Merryman v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
v. City of Phoenix, (if plain language of rule, like plain language of statute, does not disclose supreme court or legislature‟s intent, court “may look at the rule or statute‟s context, language, effects and consequences, spirit and purpose” to determine meaning).
Potter v. Vanderpool 240 P.3d 1257 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
v. City of Phoenix, , (if plain language of rule, like plain language of statute, does not disclose supreme court or legislature's intent, court "may look at the rule or statute’s context, language, effects and consequences, spirit and purpose" to determine meaning).
Ruiz v. Lopez 236 P.3d 444 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Hormel v. Maricopa County 232 P.3d 768 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Arizona Navigable Stream Adjudication Commission 229 P.3d 242 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
v. City of Phoenix, , Garza Rodriguez, 164 Ariz. at 112 , 791 P.2d at 638
King v. Titsworth 212 P.3d 935 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
v. City of Phoenix, , (“The court must, if possible, give meaning to each clause and word in the statute or rule to avoid rendering anything superfluous, void, contradictory, or insignificant.”).
Chronis v. Steinle 208 P.3d 210 Ariz. 2009
Scottsdale Insurance v. Cendejas 205 P.3d 1128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Haywood Securities, Inc. v. Ehrlich 149 P.3d 738 Ariz. 2007
v. City of Phoenix, (holding that a document entitled “OPINION” was not final and appealable because the superior court judge did not intend it to be); Focal Point, (finding minute entry a valid judgment because the trial court signed the written minu
Klebba v. Carpenter 139 P.3d 609 Ariz. 2006
Merlina v. Jejna 90 P.3d 202 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Haas v. Colosi 40 P.3d 1249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
v. City of Phoenix, , (“The court must, if possible, give meaning to each clause and word in the statute or rule to avoid rendering anything superfluous, void, contradictory, or insignificant.”).
Vega v. Sullivan 19 P.3d 645 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Hoggatt 18 P.3d 1239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
(finding that every part of a statute is to be given meaning so that no part is rendered “superfluous, void, contradictory, or insignificant”).
US West Communications, Inc. v. City of Tucson 11 P.3d 1054 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
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
U.S. West Communications, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 972 P.2d 652 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
v. City of Phoenix, , Calvert v. Farmers Ins.
Wersch v. Radnor/Landgrant 961 P.2d 1047 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
(construing the meaning of a state statute); , (interpreting court rules using the same principles of construction as statutes).
Juvenile in Mohave County Juvenile Court v. Superior Court 943 P.2d 875 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Cutter Aviation, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 958 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Dugan v. Fujitsu Business Communications Systems, Inc. 937 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Mohave County v. James R. Brathovde Family Trust 928 P.2d 1247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Superior Court 923 P.2d 871 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Tarango 914 P.2d 1300 Ariz. 1996
v. City of Phoenix, , , State v. Superior Court (Kerr-McGee Corp.)
Pfeil v. Smith 900 P.2d 12 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State Ex Rel. Udall v. Superior Court 904 P.2d 1286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Fremont Indemnity Co. v. Industrial Commission 897 P.2d 707 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
v. City of Phoenix, , (citation omitted).
U.S. Xpress, Inc. v. Arizona Tax Court 879 P.2d 371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Hayes v. Continental Insurance 872 P.2d 668 Ariz. 1994
v. City of Phoenix, , Calvert v. Farmers Ins.
Matter of Peck 867 P.2d 853 Ariz. 1994
State v. Marquardt, Maricopa County Superior Court case No. 91-04596, June 6, 1991 (plea agreement).
Donahue v. Industrial Commission 871 P.2d 720 Ariz. 1993
Devenir Associates v. City of Phoenix 842 P.2d 1327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992