Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 canonical passages across 6 cases, quoted by 20 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from State v. Pitts.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | State v. Pitts Anchor | green | “we presume the legislature did not intend to write a statute that contains a void, meaningless, or futile provision.” | 5 |
| 2 | Tucson Airport Authority v. Freilich | green | “the prime rate charged by banks on short-term business loans.” | 3 |
| 3 | McMurray v. Dream Catcher USA, Inc. | green | “expressly authorized by contract or statute,” | 3 |
| 4 | Simpson v. Simpson | green | “we presume the legislature did not intend to write a statute that contains a void, meaningless, or futile provision.” | 3 |
| 5 | Estate of DeSela v. Prescott Unified School District No. 1 | green | “in conjunction with the full text of the statute,” | 3 |
| 6 | Calmat of Arizona v. State Ex Rel. Miller | green | “consider its effects and consequences, as well as its spirit and purpose” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.