School District No. 3 of Maricopa County v. Dailey

5 Citing cases

  1. Sherman v. City of Tempe

    202 Ariz. 339 (Ariz. 2002)   Cited 12 times
    Examining the alleged violation of certain statutes requiring that municipalities "mail publicity pamphlets ten days before the start of early voting"

    Moreover, interpreting "election" as election day in the post-amendment statute avoids an absurd result. See School Dist. No. 3 v. Dailey, 106 Ariz. 124, 127, 471 P.2d 736, 739 (1970) (statutes must be given a sensible construction which will avoid absurd results). If we read "election" as referring to the start of early voting, the post-amendment statute would nonsensically require that publicity pamphlets be distributed "before the earliest date for receipt . . . of any requested early ballot for the [early voting] at which the measures are to be voted on."

  2. Gomez Pools & Serv. v. Ariz. Registrar of Contractors

    1 CA-CV 22-0241 (Ariz. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 2022)

    ("Statutes must be given a sensible construction which will avoid absurd results.") (citing School District No. 3 of Maricopa Cnty. v. Dailey, 106 Ariz. 124 (1970)). Thus, this court rejects GPS' argument that the ROC lacks any authority to defend its disciplinary decisions in a superior court proceeding after the complainant resolves its dispute with a licensed contractor.

  3. Saban Rent-A-Car LLC v. Ariz. Dep't of Revenue

    418 P.3d 1066 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 4 times
    Relating history of transaction privilege tax on car rental agencies

    ¶ 24 Our analysis also is informed by the principle that "statutes must be given a sensible construction which will avoid absurd results." Sherman v. City of Tempe , 202 Ariz. 339, 343, ¶ 18, 45 P.3d 336 (2002) (citing Sch. Dist. No. 3 of Maricopa County v. Dailey , 106 Ariz. 124, 127, 471 P.2d 736 (1970) ). Acknowledging that Section 14's reach is not limitless, Saban asserts we should construe the provision so that it "reach[es] no further than A.R.S. § 5–839."

  4. Patterson v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Office

    177 Ariz. 153 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 23 times
    Applying statutory construction principles to read a portion of a rule in harmony with other parts of the rule to "give effect to the [framers’] intent behind" the rule

    "Statutes must be given a sensible construction which will avoid absurd results." Lake Havasu City v. Mohave County, 138 Ariz. 552, 557, 675 P.2d 1371, 1376 (App. 1983) ( citing School Dist. No. 3 of Maricopa County v. Dailey, 106 Ariz. 124, 471 P.2d 736 (1970) and St. Joseph's Hosp. and Medical Ctr. v. Maricopa County, 130 Ariz. 239, 635 P.2d 527 (App. 1981)). We embrace the third interpretation as the most reasonable reading of Rule 20.

  5. Lake Havasu City v. Mohave County

    138 Ariz. 552 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 47 times
    Stating that both "the federal and state constitutions require equal assessment of taxes."

    Statutes must be given a sensible construction which will avoid absurd results. School District No. 3 of Maricopa County v. Dailey, 106 Ariz. 124, 471 P.2d 736 (1970); St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center v. Maricopa County, 130 Ariz. 239, 635 P.2d 527 (App. 1981). If we were to accept the City's interpretation, it would mean that a county could avoid its obligation to provide health services to a city simply by maintaining a county board of health under article three rather than a county department of health under article four. This is so because A.R.S. § 36-190 provides that a county health department may have jurisdiction over a city.