7 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 2024–2026 7 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 of Arizona v. Martin David Salazar-Mercadogreen2 sentences2026A statute is not ambiguous because parties or courts disagree about its meaning; rather, a statute is ambiguous when, in context, “it can be reasonably read in two ways.” See Planned Parenthood Ariz., Inc. v. Mayes, 257 Ariz. 137 , 142-43, ¶ 17 (2024) (quoting State v. Salazar-Mercado, 234 Ariz. 590, 592, ¶ 5 (2014)). ¶30 The term “trauma” in Section 13-1421(A)(2) is unambiguous for the reasons the majority provides in paragraphs 10, 11, and 22: under the noscitur a sociis canon, “a word’s meaning cannot be determined in isolation [] but must be drawn from the context in which it is used.” Cit 2026However, “[i]f the statutory language is ambiguous—if ‘it can be reasonably read in two ways’—we may use alternative methods of statutory construction, including examining the rule’s historical background, its spirit and purpose, and the effects and consequences of competing interpretations.” Planned Parenthood Ariz., Inc. v. Mayes, 257 Ariz. 137 , 142 ¶ 17 (2024) (quoting State v. Salazar-Mercado, 234 Ariz. 590 , 592 ¶ 5 (2014)). | 2 | 4 |
City of Surprise v. acc/lake Pleasantgreen2 sentences2026A statute is not ambiguous because parties or courts disagree about its meaning; rather, a statute is ambiguous when, in context, “it can be reasonably read in two ways.” See Planned Parenthood Ariz., Inc. v. Mayes, 257 Ariz. 137 , 142-43, ¶ 17 (2024) (quoting State v. Salazar-Mercado, 234 Ariz. 590, 592, ¶ 5 (2014)). ¶30 The term “trauma” in Section 13-1421(A)(2) is unambiguous for the reasons the majority provides in paragraphs 10, 11, and 22: under the noscitur a sociis canon, “a word’s meaning cannot be determined in isolation [] but must be drawn from the context in which it is used.” Cit 2026A statute is not ambiguous because parties or courts disagree about its meaning; rather, a statute is ambiguous when, in context, “it can be reasonably read in two ways.” See Planned Parenthood Ariz., Inc. v. Mayes, 257 Ariz. 137 , 142-43, ¶ 17 (2024) (quoting State v. Salazar-Mercado, 234 Ariz. 590, 592, ¶ 5 (2014)). ¶30 The term “trauma” in Section 13-1421(A)(2) is unambiguous for the reasons the majority provides in paragraphs 10, 11, and 22: under the noscitur a sociis canon, “a word’s meaning cannot be determined in isolation [] but must be drawn from the context in which it is used.” Cit | 2 | 2 |
Karl v. US Bank National Ass'ngreen1 sentence2025“If a statute’s text is clear and unambiguous, it controls unless it results in an absurdity or a constitutional violation.” Id.; see also Stauffer, 233 Ariz. at 27 ¶ 21. ¶11 Section 33-420 states, in relevant part: A. A person purporting to claim . . . a lien or encumbrance against[] real property, who causes a document asserting such claim to be recorded in the office of the county recorder, knowing or having reason to know that the document is 3 BABICKY v. COPPER STATE Decision of the Court forged, groundless, contains a material misstatement or false claim or is otherwise invalid is liable | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Robert J Nicaise Jr v. Aparna Sundaram
green
1 sentence2026If the statute’s text is unambiguous, “it controls unless it results in an absurdity or a constitutional violation.” Id. (citing 4QTKIDZ, LLC v. HNT Holdings, LLC, 253 Ariz. 382 , 385 ¶ 5 (2022)). ¶8 The applicable statutory definition provides that “‘[p]ublic entity’ includes this state and any political subdivision of this state.” A.R.S. § 12-820(7). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
James C. Sell v. Hon. gama/squire & Company
green
1 sentence2026MARNER/HANIFFA Opinion of the Court unambiguous, it controls unless it results in an absurdity or a constitutional violation. 4QTKIDZ, LLC v. HNT Holdings, LLC, 253 Ariz. 382 , 385 ¶ 5 (2022) (quoting Sell v. Gama, 231 Ariz. 323 , 327 ¶ 16 (2013)). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission v. Brain
green
1 sentence2024However, “if the statute is ambiguous, we consider secondary principles of statutory interpretation, such as the context of the statute, the language used, the subject matter, its historical background, its effects and consequences, and its spirit and purpose.” Ariz. Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n v. Brain, 234 Ariz. 322 , 325 ¶ 11 (2014) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
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.