8 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1967–2017 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Fellgreen2 sentences2015Cemex, by contrast, urges that § 33-992.01(F) is “implicitly incorporated” into § 34-223(A), and that notices sent by first class mail with a certificate of mailing therefore are proper. ¶ 15 To determine whether the mailing provision in § 33-992.01(F) applies to twenty day notices sent pursuant to § 34-223(A) of the LMA, we apply the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, an established rule of statutory construction meaning “‘the expression of one or more items of a class indicates an intent to exclude all items of the same class which are not expressed.’” See Boynton v. Anderson 2015Cemex, by contrast, urges that § 33-992.01(F) is “implicitly incorporated” into § 34-223(A), and that notices sent by first class mail with a certificate of mailing therefore are proper. ¶ 15 To determine whether the mailing provision in § 33-992.01(F) applies to twenty day notices sent pursuant to § 34-223(A) of the LMA, we apply the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, an established rule of statutory construction meaning “‘the expression of one or more items of a class indicates an intent to exclude all items of the same class which are not expressed.’” See Boynton v. Anderson | 2 | 2 |
State v. Allredgreen2 sentences1995See, e.g., State v. Allred, 102 Ariz. 102, 103-04 , 425 P.2d 572, 573-74 (1967) (applying the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius ) 3 Here, subsection (E) provides that contribution is allowed if defendants are jointly and severally liable. 1995See, e.g., State v. Allred, 102 Ariz. 102, 103-04 , 425 P.2d 572, 573-74 (1967) (applying the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius ) 3 Here, subsection (E) provides that contribution is allowed if defendants are jointly and severally liable. | 1 | 2 |
ELM RETIREMENT CENTER, LP v. Callawaygreen1 sentence2017See ELM Retirement Ctr., 226 Ariz. at 290–91, ¶ 15; Voight v. Ott, 86 Ariz. 128 , 133–34 (1959) (doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius applies to contracts). | 1 | 1 |
Boynton v. Andersongreen2 sentences2015Cemex, by contrast, urges that § 33-992.01(F) is “implicitly incorporated” into § 34-223(A), and that notices sent by first class mail with a certificate of mailing therefore are proper. ¶ 15 To determine whether the mailing provision in § 33-992.01(F) applies to twenty day notices sent pursuant to § 34-223(A) of the LMA, we apply the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, an established rule of statutory construction meaning “‘the expression of one or more items of a class indicates an intent to exclude all items of the same class which are not expressed.’” See Boynton v. Anderson 2015Cemex, by contrast, urges that § 33-992.01(F) is “implicitly incorporated” into § 34-223(A), and that notices sent by first class mail with a certificate of mailing therefore are proper. ¶ 15 To determine whether the mailing provision in § 33-992.01(F) applies to twenty day notices sent pursuant to § 34-223(A) of the LMA, we apply the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, an established rule of statutory construction meaning “‘the expression of one or more items of a class indicates an intent to exclude all items of the same class which are not expressed.’” See Boynton v. Anderson | 1 | 1 |
Champlin v. Sargeantgreen2 sentences2006See Champlin v. Sargeant, 192 Ariz. 371, 374, ¶ 16 , 965 P.2d 763, 766 (1998) (discussing the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius the expression of one item implies the exclusion of others). 2006See Champlin v. Sargeant, 192 Ariz. 371, 374, ¶ 16 , 965 P.2d 763, 766 (1998) (discussing the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius the expression of one item implies the exclusion of others). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Roscoegreen1 sentence2003A dangerous crime against children is in the first degree if it is a completed offense and is in the second degree if it is a preparatory offense, except attempted first degree murder is a dangerous crime against children in the first degree. ¶ 8 Petitioner urges us to apply the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius and find that luring a minor for sexual exploitation is not a “dangerous crime against children.” Under that established rule of statutory construction, “the expression of one or more items of a class indicates an intent to exclude all items of the same class which are | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lewis v. Industrial Commission
green
2 sentences1990Lewis v. Industrial Commission, 93 Ariz. 324 , 380 P.2d 782 (1963). 1990Lewis v. Industrial Commission, 93 Ariz. 324 , 380 P.2d 782 (1963). | 2 | 1967–1990 |
Voight v. Ott
green
1 sentence2017See ELM Retirement Ctr., 226 Ariz. at 290–91, ¶ 15; Voight v. Ott, 86 Ariz. 128 , 133–34 (1959) (doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius applies to contracts). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Beggs v. Fite
green
2 sentences1990Beggs v. Fite, 130 Tex. 46 , 106 S.W.2d 1039 (1937). [Because] the remedy was unknown at common law, neither the State nor anyone else could be made a garnishee without legislative sanction. ****** We have stated that in a proper case we will apply the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius. 1990Beggs v. Fite, 130 Tex. 46 , 106 S.W.2d 1039 (1937). [Because] the remedy was unknown at common law, neither the State nor anyone else could be made a garnishee without legislative sanction. ****** We have stated that in a proper case we will apply the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.