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.
11 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1965–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Associated Aviation Underwriters v. Woodgreen1 sentence2021See Associated Aviation Underwriters v. Wood, 209 Ariz. 137, 178, ¶ 141 (App. 2004) (courts must avoid interpretation of statutes that renders a term meaningless). | 1 | 1 |
Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. J.E.green1 sentence2015See Alexandria P., 176 Cal.Rptr.3d at 491 (“[C]ourts have almost universally concluded that Congress intended a nationally consistent standard of proof for the good cause exception.”). ¶ 14 The impetus for ICWA was a concern that “an alarmingly high percentage of Indian families are broken up by the removal, often unwarranted, of their children” and “an *535 alarmingly high percentage of such children are placed in non-Indian foster and adoptive homes and institutions.” 25 U.S.C. § 1901 (4). | 1 | 1 |
Stapert v. Arizona Board of Psychologist Examinersgreen2 sentences2007See Stapert, 210 Ariz. at 181, ¶ 19 , 108 P.3d at 960 (concluding that legislature did not intend to include a good-cause exception for untimely motions for review or rehearing). 8 III. 2007See Stapert, 210 Ariz. at 181, ¶ 19 , 108 P.3d at 960 (concluding that legislature did not intend to include a good-cause exception for untimely motions for review or rehearing). 8 III. | 1 | 1 |
Guminski v. THE ARIZONA STATE VETERINARY MEDICAL EXAMINING BOARDgreen2 sentences2005See Guminski, 201 Ariz. at 182 ¶ 8, 33 P.3d at 516 . ¶ 19 Our conclusion that the Board lacks discretion to add a good-cause exception for untimely motions for review or rehearing is bolstered by the lack of an explicit exception in the rules and statutes. 2005See Guminski, 201 Ariz. at 182 ¶ 8, 33 P.3d at 516 . ¶ 19 Our conclusion that the Board lacks discretion to add a good-cause exception for untimely motions for review or rehearing is bolstered by the lack of an explicit exception in the rules and statutes. | 1 | 1 |
Charles A. Buschmann v. Richard S. Schweiker , Secretary of the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfaregreen1 sentence1999See Buschmann v. Schweiker, 676 F.2d 352, 357 (9th Cir.1982). | 1 | 1 |
In Re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Action No. S-903.green2 sentences1991Matter of Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Action No. S-903, 130 Ariz. 202, 206 , 635 P.2d 187, 191 (App.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1007 , 102 S.Ct. 1644 , 71 L.Ed.2d 875 (1982); H.R.Rep. 1386 at 21. 1991Matter of Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Action No. S-903, 130 Ariz. 202, 206 , 635 P.2d 187, 191 (App.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1007 , 102 S.Ct. 1644 , 71 L.Ed.2d 875 (1982); H.R.Rep. 1386 at 21. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Trisha A. v. Department of Child safety/l.A./l.A.
green
2 sentences2024Mother cites our supreme court’s decision in Trisha A. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 247 Ariz. 84 (2019), for the proposition that a meritorious defense is not required “because the good cause inquiry centers on the justification for nonappearance at a hearing and necessarily precedes a final severance judgment.” ¶17 Mother misconstrues Trisha A. and the rules of procedure underlying its analysis. 2024The supreme court held in Trisha A. that “a parent seeking to set aside a severance judgment entered after failing to appear at the final severance hearing . . . must show ‘good cause’ for the nonappearance and a meritorious defense.” Id. at 89 ¶ 19. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
City of Phoenix v. Peterson
green
2 sentences2015More specifically, Sierra Club argues that Mohave never claimed it needed a waiver because it cannot comply with the REST rules and the good cause exception should be construed narrowly to prevent the exception from “swallowing] the rule.” ¶ 17 Whether good cause exists for a waiver is a case-by-case determination that “depends on the particular circumstances ... and considerations of practical convenience.” See City of Phoenix v. Peterson, 11 Ariz.App. 136, 141 , 462 P.2d 829 (App.1969). 2015More specifically, Sierra Club argues that Mohave never claimed it needed a waiver because it cannot comply with the REST rules and the good cause exception should be construed narrowly to prevent the exception from “swallowing] the rule.” ¶ 17 Whether good cause exists for a waiver is a case-by-case determination that “depends on the particular circumstances ... and considerations of practical convenience.” See City of Phoenix v. Peterson, 11 Ariz.App. 136, 141 , 462 P.2d 829 (App.1969). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Moulton v. Napolitano
green
2 sentences2007Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies ¶ 31 SOVA contends that a party should not be required to exhaust administrative remedies when such an effort would be futile, relying upon Moulton v. Napolitano, 205 Ariz. 506 , 73 P.3d 637 (App.2003). 2007Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies ¶ 31 SOVA contends that a party should not be required to exhaust administrative remedies when such an effort would be futile, relying upon Moulton v. Napolitano, 205 Ariz. 506 , 73 P.3d 637 (App.2003). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Banta v. Arizona Department of Economic Security
green
2 sentences2006As we stated in Banta, the statute is unambiguous and must be enforced according to its terms. 130 Ariz. at 474 , 636 P.2d at 1256 . ¶ 29 The regulation also fails to support a good cause exception. 2006As we stated in Banta, the statute is unambiguous and must be enforced according to its terms. 130 Ariz. at 474 , 636 P.2d at 1256 . ¶ 29 The regulation also fails to support a good cause exception. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Roman v. Arizona Department of Economic Security
green
2 sentences2006Id. at 583-85 , 637 P.2d at 1086-88 . 2006Id. at 583-85 , 637 P.2d at 1086-88 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Dioguardi v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2005There is no statute that would similarly necessarily imply that the Board has the authority to create a good-cause exception for an untimely motion for reconsideration. ¶ 15 Dr. Stapert claims that this court’s opinion in Dioguardi v. Superior Court (Arizona Board of Medical Examiners), 184 Ariz. 414 , 909 P.2d 481 (App.1995), also supports his contention that the Board has discretion to interpret time periods in the administrative rules. 2005There is no statute that would similarly necessarily imply that the Board has the authority to create a good-cause exception for an untimely motion for reconsideration. ¶ 15 Dr. Stapert claims that this court’s opinion in Dioguardi v. Superior Court (Arizona Board of Medical Examiners), 184 Ariz. 414 , 909 P.2d 481 (App.1995), also supports his contention that the Board has discretion to interpret time periods in the administrative rules. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Baxter v. Mouzavires
green
1 sentence1991Matter of Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Action No. S-903, 130 Ariz. 202, 206 , 635 P.2d 187, 191 (App.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1007 , 102 S.Ct. 1644 , 71 L.Ed.2d 875 (1982); H.R.Rep. 1386 at 21. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Estelle v. Granviel
green
1 sentence1991Matter of Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Action No. S-903, 130 Ariz. 202, 206 , 635 P.2d 187, 191 (App.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1007 , 102 S.Ct. 1644 , 71 L.Ed.2d 875 (1982); H.R.Rep. 1386 at 21. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Catholic Social Services of Tucson v. P. C.
green
1 sentence1991Matter of Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Action No. S-903, 130 Ariz. 202, 206 , 635 P.2d 187, 191 (App.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1007 , 102 S.Ct. 1644 , 71 L.Ed.2d 875 (1982); H.R.Rep. 1386 at 21. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Kirkpatrick v. Industrial Commission
green
2 sentences1970State Farm Insurance Company v. Roberts, 97 Ariz. 169 , 398 P.2d 671 (1965).” ( 10 Ariz.App. at 570 , 460 P.2d at 676 ). 1970State Farm Insurance Company v. Roberts, 97 Ariz. 169 , 398 P.2d 671 (1965).” ( 10 Ariz.App. at 570 , 460 P.2d at 676 ). | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Shepherd v. Castle
green
1 sentence1970But we have not found any reasoned authority which holds, on appropriate facts,, that the good cause requirement is to be read into Rule 45 insofar as it relates to-subpoenas duces tecum directed to non-party witnesses. 7 One of the few cases in: which the issue is clearly presented and effectively disposed of is Shepherd v. Castle, 20 F.R.D. 184 (W.D.Mo.1957). | 1 | 1970–1970 |
State Farm Insurance Company v. Roberts
green
2 sentences1970State Farm, therefore, stands in the position of a party to this action, at least for the purposes of discovery.” ( 97 Ariz. at 176 , 398 P.2d at 675 .) After stating the indicated question and discussing the authorities on the subject, the opinion states, at 97 Ariz. 178 , 398 P.2d 676 : “Having already determined that for the purposes of discovery State Farm is a party to this action, it is our opinion that plaintiffs had the burden of showing good cause when the subpoena was challenged by motion.” It is thus abundantly clear that the reading of the good cause requirement into Rule 45 in Sta 1970State Farm, therefore, stands in the position of a party to this action, at least for the purposes of discovery.” ( 97 Ariz. at 176 , 398 P.2d at 675 .) After stating the indicated question and discussing the authorities on the subject, the opinion states, at 97 Ariz. 178 , 398 P.2d 676 : “Having already determined that for the purposes of discovery State Farm is a party to this action, it is our opinion that plaintiffs had the burden of showing good cause when the subpoena was challenged by motion.” It is thus abundantly clear that the reading of the good cause requirement into Rule 45 in Sta | 1 | 1970–1970 |
cluster 251545
green
2 sentences1965E. g., Boeing Airplane Co. v. Coggeshall, 108 U.S.App.D.C. 106 , 280 F.2d 654 (1960), and Schwartz v. Broadcast Music, 16 F.R.D. 31 (S.D.N.Y. 1954). 1965E. g., Boeing Airplane Co. v. Coggeshall, 108 U.S.App.D.C. 106 , 280 F.2d 654 (1960), and Schwartz v. Broadcast Music, 16 F.R.D. 31 (S.D.N.Y. 1954). | 1 | 1965–1965 |
Schwartz v. Broadcast Music, Inc.
green
1 sentence1965E. g., Boeing Airplane Co. v. Coggeshall, 108 U.S.App.D.C. 106 , 280 F.2d 654 (1960), and Schwartz v. Broadcast Music, 16 F.R.D. 31 (S.D.N.Y. 1954). | 1 | 1965–1965 |
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.