J.L.F. v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (2004)
green
· 41 citation events
across 1 courts.
Showing the 12 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2005 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
200520152026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
Ritland v. Arizona State Board of Medical Examiners (2006)
Conversely, the Board is not an appellate body; it is the ultimate decision maker, A.R.S. § 32-1451(M); J.L.F., 208 Ariz. at 161-62, ¶ 12, 91 P.3d at 1004-05 ; Smith, 207 Ariz. at 220, ¶ 15 , 84 P.3d at 485 .
green
SOROKIN v. Arnold (2009)
J.L.F. v. Ariz. Health Care Cost Containment Sys., 208 Ariz. 159, 162, ¶ 15 , 91 P.3d 1002, 1005 (App.2004) (acknowledging statutory context relevant to interpretation).
green
Owens v. M.E. Schepp Ltd. Partnership (2007)
J.L.F. v. Ariz. Health Care Cost Containment *682 Sys., 208 Ariz. 159, 162, ¶ 15 , 91 P.3d 1002, 1005 (App.2004) (citations omitted) (acknowledging that if statutory language is unclear we consider other factors, including spirit and purpose of provision).
green
Callen v. Rogers (2007)
Substantial Evidence Supports the Director’s Determination That All of the Extractions Sought By Callen Were Not Emergency Services. ¶34 In reviewing the Director’s factual conclusions we decide “only whether there is substantial evidence to support the administrative decision____A decision supported by substantial evidence may not be set aside as being arbitrary and capricious.” Smith, 207 Ariz. at 220, ¶ 14 , 84 P.3d at 485 ; J.L.F., 208 Ariz. at 161, ¶ 10 , 91 P.3d at 100…
green
Phoenix City Prosecutor's Office v. Ybarra (2007)
See Fuentes v. Fuentes, 209 Ariz. 51, 55, ¶ 12 , 97 P.3d 876, 880 (App.2004) (noting court need not resort to secondary rules of construction when language is clear); J.L.F. v. Ariz. Health Care Cost Containment Sys., 208 Ariz. 159, 162, ¶ 15 , 91 P.3d 1002, 1005 (App.2004) (acknowledging that if statutory language is unclear “we consider the statute’s context, subject matter, historical context, effects and consequences, and spirit and purpose”) (citations omitted). ¶ 14 Se…
green
Universal Homes v. Mitchell (2019)
J.L.F. v. Ariz. Health Care Cost Containment Sys., 208 Ariz. 159, 161, ¶ 12 (App. 2004).
green
Wildearth Guardians, Inc. v. Hickman (2013)
Appellate review of this type of decision focuses on “whether the order is supported by the law and substantial evidence, and whether it is arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of the agency’s discretion.” J.L.F. v. AHCCCS, 208 Ariz. 159, 161, ¶ 10 , 91 P.3d 1002, 1004 (App.2004). ¶ 17 The weighing of the equities does not depend solely on the number of equities awarded to each party, but on a qualitative assessment of the equities.
green
Mago v. Mercedes-Benz, U.S.A., Inc. (2006)
J.L.F. v. Ariz. Health Care Cost Containment Sys., 208 Ariz. 159, 162, ¶ 15 , 91 P.3d 1002, 1005 (App.2004) (noting court considers purpose of statute to divine intent).
J.L.F. v. Ariz. Health Care Cost Containment Sys., 208 Ariz. 159, 162, ¶ 15 , 91 P.3d 1002, 1005 (App.2004) (citations omitted) (acknowledging that if statutory language unclear “we consider the statute’s context” among other things).
green
Di Giacinto v. Arizona State Retirement System (2017)
J.L.F. v. Ariz. Health Care Cost Containment Sys., 208 Ariz. 159, 161, ¶ 10 , 91 P.3d 1002 (App. 2004).
green
Parrot v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. (2005)
J.L.F. v. Ariz. Health Care Cost Containment Sys., 208 Ariz. 159 , 162 ¶ 15, 91 P.3d 1002, 1005 (App.2004) (citations omitted); see BedRoc Ltd., 541 U.S. at 186, 124 S.Ct. at 1595.
green
mesa/williams v. Hon ryan/rogers (2023)
See J.L.F. v. Ariz. Health Care Cost Containment Sys., 208 Ariz. 159 , 162 ¶ 15 (App. 2004).