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.
12 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1946–2012 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Andrew S. Arena, Inc. v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2009In Andrew S. Arena, Inc. v. Superior Court (Pima County), we held that "A.R.S. § 12-821 does not bar class actions against public entities," and that "a claim against a public entity may be presented as a class claim." 163 Ariz. 423, 426 , 788 P.2d 1174, 1177 (1990). 2009In Andrew S. Arena, Inc. v. Superior Court (Pima County), we held that "A.R.S. § 12-821 does not bar class actions against public entities," and that "a claim against a public entity may be presented as a class claim." 163 Ariz. 423, 426 , 788 P.2d 1174, 1177 (1990). | 3 | 5 |
Lunsford v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1983See, e.g., Lunsford v. United States, 570 F.2d 221 (8th Cir.1977). 1983See, e.g., Lunsford v. United States, 570 F.2d 221 (8th Cir.1977). | 2 | 2 |
Evans v. Arizona Dept. of Correctionsgreen2 sentences2008Citing Evans v. Arizona Department of Corrections, 139 Ariz. 321 , 678 P.2d 506 (App.1983), Pima County filed a motion to dismiss the portion of the class claim seeking money damages. 2008Citing Evans v. Arizona Department of Corrections, 139 Ariz. 321 , 678 P.2d 506 (App.1983), Pima County filed a motion to dismiss the portion of the class claim seeking money damages. | 1 | 2 |
City of Phoenix v. Fieldsgreen2 sentences2012See City of Phoenix v. Fields, 219 Ariz. 568, 573, ¶ 19 , 201 P.3d 529, 534 (2009) (holding that a class representative must include in his notice of claim a “specific amount” for which his individual claim can be settled); Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue v. Dougherty, 200 Ariz. 515 , 522 n. 11, ¶ 24, 29 P.3d 862 , 869 n. 11 (2001) (holding that the class representative’s identification of a refund amount for her individual claim sufficed to preserve the class claim under A.R.S. § 42-1118(E)). ¶ 33 Taxpayers’ March 30, 2006, letter does incorporate “(ii) the amended Form 140X of the Class Representativ 2012See City of Phoenix v. Fields, 219 Ariz. 568, 573, ¶ 19 , 201 P.3d 529, 534 (2009) (holding that a class representative must include in his notice of claim a “specific amount” for which his individual claim can be settled); Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue v. Dougherty, 200 Ariz. 515 , 522 n. 11, ¶ 24, 29 P.3d 862 , 869 n. 11 (2001) (holding that the class representative’s identification of a refund amount for her individual claim sufficed to preserve the class claim under A.R.S. § 42-1118(E)). ¶ 33 Taxpayers’ March 30, 2006, letter does incorporate “(ii) the amended Form 140X of the Class Representativ | 1 | 1 |
State v. Phillipsgreen2 sentences2008Judge Grant argued that "substantial compliance with the claim presentation statute [was] sufficient” and that the class claim substantially complied with A.R.S. § 12-821 because: the identity and location of unnamed class members are easily discoverable from the state’s records, [the] class has a well defined community of interest in the facts and seeks a common recovery, [ ] the state's liability for its acts to the entire class is discoverable from its own records, and [] individual claims would serve no useful purpose. 139 Ariz. at 327, 678 P.2d at 512. 6 . 2008Judge Grant argued that "substantial compliance with the claim presentation statute [was] sufficient” and that the class claim substantially complied with A.R.S. § 12-821 because: the identity and location of unnamed class members are easily discoverable from the state’s records, [the] class has a well defined community of interest in the facts and seeks a common recovery, [ ] the state's liability for its acts to the entire class is discoverable from its own records, and [] individual claims would serve no useful purpose. 139 Ariz. at 327, 678 P.2d at 512. 6 . | 1 | 1 |
State Ex Rel. Nelson v. Jordangreen2 sentences2001Nelson v. Jordan, 104 Ariz. 193, 196 , 450 P.2d 383, 386 (1969). 2001Nelson v. Jordan, 104 Ariz. 193, 196 , 450 P.2d 383, 386 (1969). | 1 | 1 |
City of San Jose v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1983While section 422.40 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires a complaint to name the "parties," it is settled the pleading need only establish the existence of an ascertainable class rather than name each member of the class. 12 Cal.3d at 457 , 525 P.2d at 707-08 , 115 Cal. Rptr. at 803-04 (citations and footnote omitted). *326 I adhere to the view expressed in Bozaich v. State, 32 Cal. App.3d 688 , 108 Cal. Rptr. 392 (1973), in a footnote, that: We are mindful that circumstances might arise under which it might be said that the filing of a class claim with the public entity amounted to compli 1983While section 422.40 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires a complaint to name the "parties," it is settled the pleading need only establish the existence of an ascertainable class rather than name each member of the class. 12 Cal.3d at 457 , 525 P.2d at 707-08 , 115 Cal. Rptr. at 803-04 (citations and footnote omitted). *326 I adhere to the view expressed in Bozaich v. State, 32 Cal. App.3d 688 , 108 Cal. Rptr. 392 (1973), in a footnote, that: We are mindful that circumstances might arise under which it might be said that the filing of a class claim with the public entity amounted to compli | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Dougherty
green
2 sentences2012See City of Phoenix v. Fields, 219 Ariz. 568, 573, ¶ 19 , 201 P.3d 529, 534 (2009) (holding that a class representative must include in his notice of claim a “specific amount” for which his individual claim can be settled); Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue v. Dougherty, 200 Ariz. 515 , 522 n. 11, ¶ 24, 29 P.3d 862 , 869 n. 11 (2001) (holding that the class representative’s identification of a refund amount for her individual claim sufficed to preserve the class claim under A.R.S. § 42-1118(E)). ¶ 33 Taxpayers’ March 30, 2006, letter does incorporate “(ii) the amended Form 140X of the Class Representativ 2012See City of Phoenix v. Fields, 219 Ariz. 568, 573, ¶ 19 , 201 P.3d 529, 534 (2009) (holding that a class representative must include in his notice of claim a “specific amount” for which his individual claim can be settled); Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue v. Dougherty, 200 Ariz. 515 , 522 n. 11, ¶ 24, 29 P.3d 862 , 869 n. 11 (2001) (holding that the class representative’s identification of a refund amount for her individual claim sufficed to preserve the class claim under A.R.S. § 42-1118(E)). ¶ 33 Taxpayers’ March 30, 2006, letter does incorporate “(ii) the amended Form 140X of the Class Representativ | 3 | 2009–2012 |
Deer Valley Unified School District No. 97 v. Houser
green
2 sentences2009Nor, because it was decided under the 1984 Act, did Arena involve the requirement in § 12-821.01(A), added in the 1994 Act, that a notice include a “specific amount” for which the claim can be settled. ¶ 12 In Deer Valley Unified School District No. 97 v. Houser (McDonald), we held that in light of the “clear and unequivocal” language of § 12-821.01(A), a notice of claim *572 must “include a particular and certain amount of money that, if agreed to by the government entity, will settle the claim.” 214 Ariz. 293 , 296 ¶9, 152 P.3d 490 , 493 (2007). 2009Nor, because it was decided under the 1984 Act, did Arena involve the requirement in § 12-821.01(A), added in the 1994 Act, that a notice include a "specific amount" for which the claim can be settled. ¶12 In Deer Valley Unified School District No. 97 v. Houser (McDonald), we held that in light of the "clear and unequivocal" language of § 12-821.01(A), a notice of claim must "include a particular and certain amount of money that, if agreed to by the government entity, will settle the claim." 214 Ariz. 293 , 296 ¶9, 152 P.3d 490 , 493 (2007). | 2 | 2009–2009 |
DEER VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST. v. Houser
green
2 sentences2009Nor, because it was decided under the 1984 Act, did Arena involve the requirement in § 12-821.01(A), added in the 1994 Act, that a notice include a “specific amount” for which the claim can be settled. ¶ 12 In Deer Valley Unified School District No. 97 v. Houser (McDonald), we held that in light of the “clear and unequivocal” language of § 12-821.01(A), a notice of claim *572 must “include a particular and certain amount of money that, if agreed to by the government entity, will settle the claim.” 214 Ariz. 293 , 296 ¶9, 152 P.3d 490 , 493 (2007). 2009Nor, because it was decided under the 1984 Act, did Arena involve the requirement in § 12-821.01(A), added in the 1994 Act, that a notice include a "specific amount" for which the claim can be settled. ¶12 In Deer Valley Unified School District No. 97 v. Houser (McDonald), we held that in light of the "clear and unequivocal" language of § 12-821.01(A), a notice of claim must "include a particular and certain amount of money that, if agreed to by the government entity, will settle the claim." 214 Ariz. 293 , 296 ¶9, 152 P.3d 490 , 493 (2007). | 2 | 2009–2009 |
City of Phoenix v. Fields
green
2 sentences2009The court held that § 12-821.01(A) applies to class actions, id. at 94 ¶ 16, 193 P.3d at 788 , and that the notices filed by the Class were deficient for failure to specify an amount for which the class claim could be settled, id. at 95-96 ¶ 22, 193 P.3d at 789-90 . ¶6 The Class petitioned for review. 2009The court held that § 12-821.01(A) applies to class actions, id. at 94 ¶ 16, 193 P.3d at 788 , and that the notices filed by the Class were deficient for failure to specify an amount for which the class claim could be settled, id. at 95-96 ¶ 22, 193 P.3d at 789-90 . ¶6 The Class petitioned for review. | 2 | 2009–2009 |
Harrigan v. United States
green
2 sentences1983In Harrigan v. United States, 63 F.R.D. 402 (E.D.Pa.1974), the court held that each class member must independently file an administrative claim. 1983In Harrigan v. United States, 63 F.R.D. 402 (E.D.Pa. 1974), the court held that each class member must independently file an administrative claim. | 2 | 1983–1983 |
Bozaich v. State of California
green
2 sentences1983While section 422.40 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires a complaint to name the "parties," it is settled the pleading need only establish the existence of an ascertainable class rather than name each member of the class. 12 Cal.3d at 457 , 525 P.2d at 707-08 , 115 Cal. Rptr. at 803-04 (citations and footnote omitted). *326 I adhere to the view expressed in Bozaich v. State, 32 Cal. App.3d 688 , 108 Cal. Rptr. 392 (1973), in a footnote, that: We are mindful that circumstances might arise under which it might be said that the filing of a class claim with the public entity amounted to compli 1983While section 422.40 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires a complaint to name the "parties," it is settled the pleading need only establish the existence of an ascertainable class rather than name each member of the class. 12 Cal.3d at 457 , 525 P.2d at 707-08 , 115 Cal. Rptr. at 803-04 (citations and footnote omitted). *326 I adhere to the view expressed in Bozaich v. State, 32 Cal. App.3d 688 , 108 Cal. Rptr. 392 (1973), in a footnote, that: We are mindful that circumstances might arise under which it might be said that the filing of a class claim with the public entity amounted to compli | 2 | 1983–1983 |
Havasupai Tribe of the Havasupai Reservation v. Arizona Board of Regents
green
2 sentences2012At that point, the limitations periods for all relevant tax years through 2003 had expired. ¶ 34 Relying on Havasupai Tribe of Havasupai Reservation v. Arizona Board of Regents, Taxpayers maintain that their March 30, 2006 letter satisfies the A.R.S. § 42-1118(E) requirements by incorporating by reference the documents on file with the Department. 220 Ariz. 214 , 225 n. 9, ¶ 38, 204 P.3d 1063 , 1074 n. 9 (App.2009). 2012At that point, the limitations periods for all relevant tax years through 2003 had expired. ¶ 34 Relying on Havasupai Tribe of Havasupai Reservation v. Arizona Board of Regents, Taxpayers maintain that their March 30, 2006 letter satisfies the A.R.S. § 42-1118(E) requirements by incorporating by reference the documents on file with the Department. 220 Ariz. 214 , 225 n. 9, ¶ 38, 204 P.3d 1063 , 1074 n. 9 (App.2009). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Dougherty
green
2 sentences2001Id. at 5 ¶ 22, 6 P.3d at 310 ¶ 22. 2001Id. at 5 ¶ 22, 6 P.3d at 310 ¶ 22. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
City of Phoenix v. Michael
green
2 sentences1946Plaintiff feels compelled to resist this class of a claim because of our case of City of Phoenix v. Michael, 61 Ariz. 238 , 148 P.2d 353, 354 . 1946Plaintiff feels compelled to resist this class of a claim because of our case of City of Phoenix v. Michael, 61 Ariz. 238 , 148 P.2d 353, 354 . | 1 | 1946–1946 |
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.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.