15 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 2013–2023 6 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arizona courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
James C. Sell v. Hon. gama/squire & Companygreen2 sentences2023See 4QTKIDZ, LLC v. HNT Holdings, LLC, 253 Ariz. 382 , 385 ¶ 5 (2022) (“‘When the plain text of a statute is clear and unambiguous,’ it controls unless an absurdity or constitutional violation results.” (quoting Sell v. Gama, 231 Ariz. 323 , 327 ¶ 16 (2013))). 2022See Sell v. Gama, 231 Ariz. 323 , 327 ¶ 16 (2013) (“‘When the plain text of a statute is clear and unambiguous,’ it controls unless an absurdity or constitutional violation results.” (quoting State v. Christian, 205 Ariz. 64 , 66 ¶ 6 (2003))); see also Stapert v. Arizona Bd. of Psychologist Examiners, 210 Ariz. 177, 180, ¶ 7 (App. 2005) (“The rules for interpreting statutes apply equally to administrative regulations.”). ¶18 We hold that, under the Department’s regulatory rules, there is no substantiated finding to enter into the Registry in this case. | 4 | 8 |
Metzler v. Bci Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Los Angeles, Inc.green2 sentences2017See Metzler v. BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of L.A., Inc., 235 Ariz. 141 , 144-45 ¶ 13 (2014) (statute’s language controls “unless an absurdity or constitutional violation results”). 2015See Metzler v. BCI Coca- Cola Bottling Co., 235 Ariz. 141, 144, ¶ 13 (2014) ("If the statute's language is clear, it controls unless an absurdity or constitutional violation results.") (quotation omitted). ¶14 Finally, Ayiyi argues that, as applied, the referenced paternity statutes violated his constitutional right to due process by creating an irrebuttable presumption of paternity. | 3 | 3 |
State v. Christiangreen2 sentences2022See Sell v. Gama, 231 Ariz. 323 , 327 ¶ 16 (2013) (“‘When the plain text of a statute is clear and unambiguous,’ it controls unless an absurdity or constitutional violation results.” (quoting State v. Christian, 205 Ariz. 64 , 66 ¶ 6 (2003))); see also Stapert v. Arizona Bd. of Psychologist Examiners, 210 Ariz. 177, 180, ¶ 7 (App. 2005) (“The rules for interpreting statutes apply equally to administrative regulations.”). ¶18 We hold that, under the Department’s regulatory rules, there is no substantiated finding to enter into the Registry in this case. 2022Gabaldon v. State, 228 Ariz. 323 , 325 ¶ 8 (2011). “‘When the plain text of a statute is clear and unambiguous,’ it controls unless an absurdity or constitutional violation results.” Sell v. Gama, 231 Ariz. 323 , 327 ¶ 16 (2013) (quoting State v. Christian, 205 Ariz. 64 , 66 ¶ 6 (2003)). | 2 | 6 |
Stapert v. Arizona Board of Psychologist Examinersgreen1 sentence2022See Sell v. Gama, 231 Ariz. 323 , 327 ¶ 16 (2013) (“‘When the plain text of a statute is clear and unambiguous,’ it controls unless an absurdity or constitutional violation results.” (quoting State v. Christian, 205 Ariz. 64 , 66 ¶ 6 (2003))); see also Stapert v. Arizona Bd. of Psychologist Examiners, 210 Ariz. 177, 180, ¶ 7 (App. 2005) (“The rules for interpreting statutes apply equally to administrative regulations.”). ¶18 We hold that, under the Department’s regulatory rules, there is no substantiated finding to enter into the Registry in this case. | 1 | 1 |
Pauley v. BethEnergy Mines, Inc.green1 sentence2021State v. Green, 248 Ariz. 133 , 135 ¶ 8 (2020) (“When the plain text of a statute is clear and unambiguous, it controls unless an absurdity or constitutional violation results.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)); Pauley v. BethEnergy Mines, Inc., 501 U.S. 680, 719 (1991) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (discussing “the hoary canon of construction, expressio unius est exclusio alterius” and citing Burns v. United States, 501 U.S. 129 , 136–38 (1991), abrogated by Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (stating that invocation of expressio unius inappropriate where it would l | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wagstaffgreen1 sentence2020GREEN Opinion of the Court a statute and its subsections as a consistent and harmonious whole.’” Hoffman v. Chandler, 231 Ariz. 362 , 363 ¶ 7 (2013) (quoting State v. Wagstaff, 164 Ariz. 485, 491 (1990)). “‘When the plain text of a statute is clear and unambiguous,’ it controls unless an absurdity or constitutional violation results.” Sell v. Gama, 231 Ariz. 323 , 327 ¶ 16 (2013) (quoting State v. Christian, 205 Ariz. 64 , 66 ¶ 6 (2003)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kinggreen2 sentences2016See State v. King, 225 Ariz. 87 , 89 ¶ 5, 235 P.3d 240, 242 (2010) (reviewing issues of statutory interpretation de novo); State v. Miller, 234 Ariz. 31 , 43 ¶ 41, 316 P.3d 1219, 1231 (2013) (noting that trial court’s refusal to give a jury instruction is reviewed for abuse of discretion, but legal adequacy of instructions is reviewed de novo). ¶ 6 When a statute’s language is clear, “it controls unless an absurdity or constitutional violation results. 2016See State v. King, 225 Ariz. 87 , 89 ¶ 5, 235 P.3d 240, 242 (2010) (reviewing issues of statutory interpretation de novo); State v. Miller, 234 Ariz. 31 , 43 ¶ 41, 316 P.3d 1219, 1231 (2013) (noting that trial court’s refusal to give a jury instruction is reviewed for abuse of discretion, but legal adequacy of instructions is reviewed de novo). ¶ 6 When a statute’s language is clear, “it controls unless an absurdity or constitutional violation results. | 1 | 1 |
State of Arizona v. William Craig Millergreen2 sentences2016See State v. King, 225 Ariz. 87 , 89 ¶ 5, 235 P.3d 240, 242 (2010) (reviewing issues of statutory interpretation de novo); State v. Miller, 234 Ariz. 31 , 43 ¶ 41, 316 P.3d 1219, 1231 (2013) (noting that trial court’s refusal to give a jury instruction is reviewed for abuse of discretion, but legal adequacy of instructions is reviewed de novo). ¶ 6 When a statute’s language is clear, “it controls unless an absurdity or constitutional violation results. 2016See State v. King, 225 Ariz. 87 , 89 ¶ 5, 235 P.3d 240, 242 (2010) (reviewing issues of statutory interpretation de novo); State v. Miller, 234 Ariz. 31 , 43 ¶ 41, 316 P.3d 1219, 1231 (2013) (noting that trial court’s refusal to give a jury instruction is reviewed for abuse of discretion, but legal adequacy of instructions is reviewed de novo). ¶ 6 When a statute’s language is clear, “it controls unless an absurdity or constitutional violation results. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Burns v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2021State v. Green, 248 Ariz. 133 , 135 ¶ 8 (2020) (“When the plain text of a statute is clear and unambiguous, it controls unless an absurdity or constitutional violation results.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)); Pauley v. BethEnergy Mines, Inc., 501 U.S. 680, 719 (1991) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (discussing “the hoary canon of construction, expressio unius est exclusio alterius” and citing Burns v. United States, 501 U.S. 129 , 136–38 (1991), abrogated by Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (stating that invocation of expressio unius inappropriate where it would l | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Estate of braden/gabaldon v. State
green
1 sentence2022Gabaldon v. State, 228 Ariz. 323 , 325 ¶ 8 (2011). “‘When the plain text of a statute is clear and unambiguous,’ it controls unless an absurdity or constitutional violation results.” Sell v. Gama, 231 Ariz. 323 , 327 ¶ 16 (2013) (quoting State v. Christian, 205 Ariz. 64 , 66 ¶ 6 (2003)). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Robert J Nicaise Jr v. Aparna Sundaram
green
1 sentence2022“A cardinal principle of statutory interpretation is to give meaning, if possible, to every word and provision so that no word or provision is rendered superfluous.” Nicaise v. Sundaram, 245 Ariz. 566 , 568 ¶ 11 (2019). 3 4QTKIDZ, LLC v. HNT HOLDINGS, LLC Opinion of the Court A. ¶6 When a property owner becomes delinquent on property taxes, the state acquires a lien upon the property which it can then sell to a private party who becomes a lienholder. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Dillon v. United States
green
1 sentence2021State v. Green, 248 Ariz. 133 , 135 ¶ 8 (2020) (“When the plain text of a statute is clear and unambiguous, it controls unless an absurdity or constitutional violation results.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)); Pauley v. BethEnergy Mines, Inc., 501 U.S. 680, 719 (1991) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (discussing “the hoary canon of construction, expressio unius est exclusio alterius” and citing Burns v. United States, 501 U.S. 129 , 136–38 (1991), abrogated by Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (stating that invocation of expressio unius inappropriate where it would l | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State of Arizona v. David Lee Green
green
1 sentence2021State v. Green, 248 Ariz. 133 , 135 ¶ 8 (2020) (“When the plain text of a statute is clear and unambiguous, it controls unless an absurdity or constitutional violation results.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)); Pauley v. BethEnergy Mines, Inc., 501 U.S. 680, 719 (1991) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (discussing “the hoary canon of construction, expressio unius est exclusio alterius” and citing Burns v. United States, 501 U.S. 129 , 136–38 (1991), abrogated by Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (stating that invocation of expressio unius inappropriate where it would l | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Estrada
green
1 sentence2020An interpretation is “absurd if it is so irrational, unnatural, or inconvenient that it cannot be supposed to have been within the intention of persons with ordinary intelligence and discretion.” State v. Estrada (Estrada II), 201 Ariz. 247 , 251 ¶ 17 (2001) (quoting Perini Land Dev. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Frank Hoffman v. Hon. chandler/state
green
1 sentence2020GREEN Opinion of the Court a statute and its subsections as a consistent and harmonious whole.’” Hoffman v. Chandler, 231 Ariz. 362 , 363 ¶ 7 (2013) (quoting State v. Wagstaff, 164 Ariz. 485, 491 (1990)). “‘When the plain text of a statute is clear and unambiguous,’ it controls unless an absurdity or constitutional violation results.” Sell v. Gama, 231 Ariz. 323 , 327 ¶ 16 (2013) (quoting State v. Christian, 205 Ariz. 64 , 66 ¶ 6 (2003)). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Linda Bell v. Ica/ Maricopa Cty/ Pinnacle Risk
green
2 sentences2018Comm'n of Ariz. , 236 Ariz. 478 , 480 ¶ 7, 341 P.3d 1149 , 1151 (2015), unless the meaning results in "an absurdity or constitutional violation," Sell v. Gama , 231 Ariz. 323 , 327 ¶ 16, 295 P.3d 421 , 425 (2013). 2018Comm'n of Ariz. , 236 Ariz. 478 , 480 ¶ 7, 341 P.3d 1149 , 1151 (2015), unless the meaning results in "an absurdity or constitutional violation," Sell v. Gama , 231 Ariz. 323 , 327 ¶ 16, 295 P.3d 421 , 425 (2013). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.