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.
6 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1942–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hornback v. Industrial Commissiongreen2 sentences1992In Hornback v. Industrial Commission, 106 Ariz. 216, 219 , 474 P.2d 807, 810 (1970), the supreme court considered the underlying policy of A.R.S. § 23-1023(C) and attributed the necessity of the Fund’s settlement approval to the fact that the Fund has no direct rights against third parties, but rather is subrogated to the rights of the employee. “[A] major purpose of the approval requirement is to prevent an employee from accepting too small a settlement and prejudicing the subrogation rights of [the Fund].” Id. 1992In Hornback v. Industrial Commission, 106 Ariz. 216, 219 , 474 P.2d 807, 810 (1970), the supreme court considered the underlying policy of A.R.S. § 23-1023(C) and attributed the necessity of the Fund’s settlement approval to the fact that the Fund has no direct rights against third parties, but rather is subrogated to the rights of the employee. “[A] major purpose of the approval requirement is to prevent an employee from accepting too small a settlement and prejudicing the subrogation rights of [the Fund].” Id. | 1 | 4 |
City of Scottsdale v. McDowell Mountain Irrigation & Drainage Districtgreen2 sentences2012Additionally, this type of statute is “remedial and must be construed liberally to promote the ends of justice.” See City of Scottsdale v. McDowell Mountain Irr. & Drainage Dist., 107 Ariz. 117, 121 , 483 P.2d 532, 536 (1971) (considering whether appellants qualified as “any person affected” under AR.S. § 45-1522, which provides a judicial remedy for challenging the organization of an irrigation district). ¶8 No prior reported ease has squarely addressed the meaning of “person aggrieved” within the context of § 9-462.06(K), particularly under the circumstances presented here, where the plainti 2012Additionally, this type of statute is “remedial and must be construed liberally to promote the ends of justice.” See City of Scottsdale v. McDowell Mountain Irr. & Drainage Dist., 107 Ariz. 117, 121 , 483 P.2d 532, 536 (1971) (considering whether appellants qualified as “any person affected” under AR.S. § 45-1522, which provides a judicial remedy for challenging the organization of an irrigation district). ¶8 No prior reported ease has squarely addressed the meaning of “person aggrieved” within the context of § 9-462.06(K), particularly under the circumstances presented here, where the plainti | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State of Arizona v. Angle
green
2 sentences1942The approval of the claim of an employee in any department of the state for services is a ministerial duty imposed by law upon the head of that department, and under State v. Angle, 56 Ariz. 46 , 104 Pac. (2d) 172 , no action in contract will lie unless and until his claim has been so approved. 1942The approval of the claim of an employee in any department of the state for services is a ministerial duty imposed by law upon the head of that department, and under State v. Angle, 56 Ariz. 46 , 104 Pac. (2d) 172 , no action in contract will lie unless and until his claim has been so approved. | 1 | 1942–1942 |
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.