Arizona Revised Statutes
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 1-214 (2026)
Words of tense, number and gender
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official)
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
A. Words in the present tense include the future as well as the present.
B. Words in the singular number include the plural, and words in the plural number include the singular.
C. Words of the masculine gender include the feminine and the neuter.
D. Words of the feminine gender include the masculine and the neuter.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1984–2025 · leading case: Est. of McGill Ex Rel. McGill v. Albrecht, 57 P.3d 384 (Ariz. 2002).
Est. of McGill Ex Rel. McGill v. Albrecht, 57 P.3d 384 (Ariz. 2002). “Whether a single act of negligence triggers APSA ¶ 10 We turn first to Plaintiffs’ suggestion that we must apply A.R.S. § 1-214 and thus construe the plural phrase “negligent acts or *529 omissions” in APSA to include any single negligent act or omission.”
State of Arizona Ex Rel. Montgomery v. Hrach Shilgevorkyan, 322 P.3d 160 (Ariz. 2014). “The State, on the other hand, argues we should construe “metabolite” in the plural in accordance with A.R.S. § 1-214(B), which generally provides that statutory “[w]ords in the singular .”
North Valley Emergency, Specialists, L.L.C. v. Santana, 93 P.3d 501 (Ariz. 2004). “” A.R.S. § 1-214(B) (2002). And unless the legislature expresses “ ‘manifest intent’ to the contrary,” a plural noun will be construed to include the singular of that noun.”
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Harris, 346 P.3d 984 (Ariz. 2014). “The State, on the other hand, argues we should construe “metabolite” in the plural in accordance with A.R.S. § 1-214(B), which generally provides that statutory “[w]ords in the singular .”
Homebuilders Ass'n of Cent. Arizona v. City of Scottsdale, 925 P.2d 1359 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996). “en percent requirement is to apply to the election, “at which a mayor or councilmen were chosen last preceding the submission of the application for a referendum petition____” While plaintiff argues the use of the plural “councilmen” demonstrates a legislative intent to look to…”
In Re Ryan A., 39 P.3d 543 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). “” A.R.S. § 1-214(B) (1995). Thus, we find the award of restitution to both parents for the same event to be appropriate.”
In Re Wilputte S., 100 P.3d 929 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). “Relying on A.R.S. §§ 1-214(B) (2002) 3 and 1-211(A) (2002), 4 the State argues that the trial court’s interpretation of the word “a” to mean “only one” is incorrect because we must interpret A.”
State of Arizona v. Andy Daniel Almeida, 356 P.3d 822 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). “” A.R.S. § 1-214(A). Section 13^411(A), as noted, allows a defendant to assert a justification defense when the defendant’s act “is immediately necessary to prevent” the commission of an offense by another.”
State v. Soza, 464 P.3d 696 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020). “A.R.S. § 1-214(B) (“Words in the singular number include the plural, and words in the plural number include the singular.”
Jorge Romero-Millan v. William Barr, 507 P.3d 999 (Ariz. 2022). “Although under Arizona law, “a” and “any” generally embrace both the singular and the plural, see A.R.S. § 1-214(B), the legislature’s modification of the narcotic drug statute in this way demonstrates an intent to change the statute to encompass the singular form of that noun.”
Long v. Napolitano, 53 P.3d 172 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). “” A.R.S. § 1-214(B) (1995). Therefore, the legislature’s singular references do not require us to construe “any county” as meaning only Maricopa County.”
State v. Hinden, 233 P.3d 621 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). “1110 Hinden argues the plain language of § 13-1501(4) requires the business to be presently used for a commercial purpose because of the statute’s use of the present tense: “is used primarily for business operations,” and “where livestock, produce, or other commercial items are…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 1-214(A) — 3 cases
State of Arizona v. Andy Daniel Almeida, 356 P.3d 822 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). “” A.R.S. § 1-214(A). Section 13^411(A), as noted, allows a defendant to assert a justification defense when the defendant’s act “is immediately necessary to prevent” the commission of an offense by another.”
State v. Hinden, 233 P.3d 621 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). “1110 Hinden argues the plain language of § 13-1501(4) requires the business to be presently used for a commercial purpose because of the statute’s use of the present tense: “is used primarily for business operations,” and “where livestock, produce, or other commercial items are…”
Joel Carson v. Hon. gentry/state (Ariz. 2025).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 1-214(B) — 20 cases
State of Arizona Ex Rel. Montgomery v. Hrach Shilgevorkyan, 322 P.3d 160 (Ariz. 2014). “The State, on the other hand, argues we should construe “metabolite” in the plural in accordance with A.R.S. § 1-214(B), which generally provides that statutory “[w]ords in the singular .”
Est. of McGill Ex Rel. McGill v. Albrecht, 57 P.3d 384 (Ariz. 2002). “Whether a single act of negligence triggers APSA ¶ 10 We turn first to Plaintiffs’ suggestion that we must apply A.R.S. § 1-214 and thus construe the plural phrase “negligent acts or *529 omissions” in APSA to include any single negligent act or omission.”
North Valley Emergency, Specialists, L.L.C. v. Santana, 93 P.3d 501 (Ariz. 2004). “” A.R.S. § 1-214(B) (2002). And unless the legislature expresses “ ‘manifest intent’ to the contrary,” a plural noun will be construed to include the singular of that noun.”
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Harris, 346 P.3d 984 (Ariz. 2014). “The State, on the other hand, argues we should construe “metabolite” in the plural in accordance with A.R.S. § 1-214(B), which generally provides that statutory “[w]ords in the singular .”
In Re Ryan A., 39 P.3d 543 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). “” A.R.S. § 1-214(B) (1995). Thus, we find the award of restitution to both parents for the same event to be appropriate.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.