overarching rule in Arizona

2007If the plain text of the rule is unambiguous, then it “will be given its usual, ordinary meaning unless doing so creates an absurd result.” State v. Aguilar, 209 Ariz. 40, ¶ 23 , 97 P.3d 865, 872 (2004).

2007If the plain text of the rule is unambiguous, then it “will be given its usual, ordinary meaning unless doing so creates an absurd result.” State v. Aguilar, 209 Ariz. 40, ¶ 23 , 97 P.3d 865, 872 (2004).

2007Not only is "`the legal position [the intervenor] seek[s] to advance and its probable relation to the merits of the case '" another express Bechtel factor, 150 Ariz. at 72 , 722 P.2d at 240 (emphasis added), quoting Spangler, 552 F.2d at 1329 , but the overarching rule guiding a court's judgment is that "the best interest of the child shall govern." Bechtel, 150 Ariz. at 73 , 722 P.2d at 241 ; see also William Z., 192 Ariz. 385, ¶ 14 , 965 P.2d at 1227 ("We focus on the welfare of the children, giving only secondary consideration to the remaining interested parties."). *389 ¶ 23 If the child's

2007Not only is "`the legal position [the intervenor] seek[s] to advance and its probable relation to the merits of the case '" another express Bechtel factor, 150 Ariz. at 72 , 722 P.2d at 240 (emphasis added), quoting Spangler, 552 F.2d at 1329 , but the overarching rule guiding a court's judgment is that "the best interest of the child shall govern." Bechtel, 150 Ariz. at 73 , 722 P.2d at 241 ; see also William Z., 192 Ariz. 385, ¶ 14 , 965 P.2d at 1227 ("We focus on the welfare of the children, giving only secondary consideration to the remaining interested parties."). *389 ¶ 23 If the child's

2007“Our construction must necessarily be governed by the overarching principle that when interpreting a court rule or statute, we are seeking to ascertain the intent of the framer.” State v. Baca, 187 Ariz. 61, 63 , 926 P.2d 528, 530 (App.1996).

2007“Our construction must necessarily be governed by the overarching principle that when interpreting a court rule or statute, we are seeking to ascertain the intent of the framer.” State v. Baca, 187 Ariz. 61, 63 , 926 P.2d 528, 530 (App.1996).

2007Not only is "`the legal position [the intervenor] seek[s] to advance and its probable relation to the merits of the case '" another express Bechtel factor, 150 Ariz. at 72 , 722 P.2d at 240 (emphasis added), quoting Spangler, 552 F.2d at 1329 , but the overarching rule guiding a court's judgment is that "the best interest of the child shall govern." Bechtel, 150 Ariz. at 73 , 722 P.2d at 241 ; see also William Z., 192 Ariz. 385, ¶ 14 , 965 P.2d at 1227 ("We focus on the welfare of the children, giving only secondary consideration to the remaining interested parties."). *389 ¶ 23 If the child's

2007Not only is "`the legal position [the intervenor] seek[s] to advance and its probable relation to the merits of the case '" another express Bechtel factor, 150 Ariz. at 72 , 722 P.2d at 240 (emphasis added), quoting Spangler, 552 F.2d at 1329 , but the overarching rule guiding a court's judgment is that "the best interest of the child shall govern." Bechtel, 150 Ariz. at 73 , 722 P.2d at 241 ; see also William Z., 192 Ariz. 385, ¶ 14 , 965 P.2d at 1227 ("We focus on the welfare of the children, giving only secondary consideration to the remaining interested parties."). *389 ¶ 23 If the child's

2006Tribal enterprises now include ski resorts, gambling, and sales of cigarettes to nonIndians____In this economic context, immunity can harm those who are unaware that they are dealing with a tribe, who do not know of tribal immunity, or who have no choice in the matter, as in the case of tort victims. 523 U.S. at 758 , 118 S.Ct. at 1704 , 140 L.Ed.2d at 987 (citations omitted). ¶ 25 As the Court in Kiowa Tribe further stated, “[t]hese considerations might suggest a need to abrogate tribal immunity, at least as an overarching rule.” Id. at 758, 118 S.Ct. at 1705 , 140 L.Ed.2d at 987 .

2006Tribal enterprises now include ski resorts, gambling, and sales of cigarettes to nonIndians____In this economic context, immunity can harm those who are unaware that they are dealing with a tribe, who do not know of tribal immunity, or who have no choice in the matter, as in the case of tort victims. 523 U.S. at 758 , 118 S.Ct. at 1704 , 140 L.Ed.2d at 987 (citations omitted). ¶ 25 As the Court in Kiowa Tribe further stated, “[t]hese considerations might suggest a need to abrogate tribal immunity, at least as an overarching rule.” Id. at 758, 118 S.Ct. at 1705 , 140 L.Ed.2d at 987 .

2015See Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 , 407 n. 12, 114 S.Ct. 2309 , 129 L.Ed.2d 304 (1994) (Stevens, J., dissenting) (“Although it has a long history, ... the ‘unconstitutional conditions’ doctrine has for just as long suffered from notoriously inconsistent application; it has never been an overarching principle of constitutional law that operates with equal force regardless of the nature of the rights and powers in question.”); Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173, 205 , 111 S.Ct. 1759 , 114 L.Ed.2d 233 (1991) (Blaekmun, J., dissenting) (“[T]he question squarely presented by the regulations — t

2015See Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 , 407 n. 12, 114 S.Ct. 2309 , 129 L.Ed.2d 304 (1994) (Stevens, J., dissenting) (“Although it has a long history, ... the ‘unconstitutional conditions’ doctrine has for just as long suffered from notoriously inconsistent application; it has never been an overarching principle of constitutional law that operates with equal force regardless of the nature of the rights and powers in question.”); Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173, 205 , 111 S.Ct. 1759 , 114 L.Ed.2d 233 (1991) (Blaekmun, J., dissenting) (“[T]he question squarely presented by the regulations — t

2015How well he applied them goes to the weight which the Court as factfinder will place on his opinions.” On appeal, Phoenix Cement asserts that the tax court “erred by permitting the County’s auditor to testify as a valuation expert.”9 ¶23 “The question of whether any witness, whether or not designated ‘expert’ is competent to testify on a given subject rests in the sound discretion of the trial court, and its exercise will not be reviewed but for abuse.” Bd. of Regents of the Univ. & State Colleges of Ariz. v. Cannon, 86 Ariz. 176, 178 (1959) (affirming the trial court’s decision to permit test

2015How well he applied them goes to the weight which the Court as factfinder will place on his opinions.” On appeal, Phoenix Cement asserts that the tax court “erred by permitting the County’s auditor to testify as a valuation expert.”9 ¶23 “The question of whether any witness, whether or not designated ‘expert’ is competent to testify on a given subject rests in the sound discretion of the trial court, and its exercise will not be reviewed but for abuse.” Bd. of Regents of the Univ. & State Colleges of Ariz. v. Cannon, 86 Ariz. 176, 178 (1959) (affirming the trial court’s decision to permit test

2015See Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 , 407 n. 12, 114 S.Ct. 2309 , 129 L.Ed.2d 304 (1994) (Stevens, J., dissenting) (“Although it has a long history, ... the ‘unconstitutional conditions’ doctrine has for just as long suffered from notoriously inconsistent application; it has never been an overarching principle of constitutional law that operates with equal force regardless of the nature of the rights and powers in question.”); Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173, 205 , 111 S.Ct. 1759 , 114 L.Ed.2d 233 (1991) (Blaekmun, J., dissenting) (“[T]he question squarely presented by the regulations — t

2015See Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 , 407 n. 12, 114 S.Ct. 2309 , 129 L.Ed.2d 304 (1994) (Stevens, J., dissenting) (“Although it has a long history, ... the ‘unconstitutional conditions’ doctrine has for just as long suffered from notoriously inconsistent application; it has never been an overarching principle of constitutional law that operates with equal force regardless of the nature of the rights and powers in question.”); Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173, 205 , 111 S.Ct. 1759 , 114 L.Ed.2d 233 (1991) (Blaekmun, J., dissenting) (“[T]he question squarely presented by the regulations — t

2014See Santa Clara Pueblo, 436 U.S. at 58 , 98 S.Ct. 1670 ; Pan Am.

2014See Santa Clara Pueblo, 436 U.S. at 58 , 98 S.Ct. 1670 ; Pan Am.

2013See Woliansky v. Miller, 135 Ariz. 444, 446 , 661 P.2d 1145, 1147 (App. 1983).

2013See Woliansky v. Miller, 135 Ariz. 444, 446 , 661 P.2d 1145, 1147 (App. 1983).