Legal Opinion · Dissent

State Ex Rel. Department of Health Services v. Cochise County

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided November 1, 1990No. CV-89-0366-PRPublished

1DissentCameron, Justice

I dissent for two reasons. First, I believe that under the statute involved that the state is a person and must comply with the county claims statute.

As the majority cites:

Since, in common usage, the term “person” does not include the sovereign, statutes employing the phrase are ordinarily construed to exclude it. But there is no hard and fast rule of exclusion. The purpose, the subject matter, the context, the legislative history, and the executive interpretation of the statute are aids to construction which may indicate an intent, by the use of the term, to bring state or nation within the…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. United States v. Cooper Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
  2. Norcor of America v. Southern Arizona International Livestock Ass'nCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1979
  3. Western Casualty & Surety Co. v. EvansCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1981
  4. Cauble v. OsselaerCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1986
  5. Maricopa Cty. v. Cities & Towns of Avondale, Etc.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1970

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API