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 1991–2024 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Neal v. City of Kingmangreen2 sentences2024See Neal v. City of Kingman, 169 Ariz. 133, 136 (1991) (explaining that appellants must raise an issue at an administrative hearing to preserve the issue); see also ¶ 5 n.1. 2021Section 11-77-4(D)(2) (2017) of the Mesa City Code provides that, when considering an appeal, the Board must conduct a public hearing de novo and must consider all relevant information, which includes but is not limited to, the application, plans, and related materials that were the subject of the original decision, any other materials presented at the appeal hearing, and—notably—“any written correspondence submitted after the appeal has been filed.” ¶18 “Failure to raise an issue at an administrative hearing that the administrative tribunal is competent to hear waives that issue.” Neal v. Cit | 5 | 5 |
Rouse v. Scottsdale Unified School District No. 48green2 sentences2018Dist., 156 Ariz. 369, 371 (App. 1987) (“the implication of waiver is appropriate” where an appellant attempts to raise a substantive issue for the first time after appearing before an administrative tribunal that was competent to hear it)). 1991See Rouse v. Scottsdale Unified School Dist., 156 Ariz. 369, 371 , 752 P.2d 22, 24 (App. 1987); DeGroot v. Arizona Racing Comm’n, 141 Ariz. 331, 340 , 686 P.2d 1301, 1310 (App.1984); Calixto v. Industrial *137 Comm’n, 126 Ariz. 400, 402 , 616 P.2d 75, 77 (App.1980). | 2 | 2 |
Estate of Bohn v. Waddellgreen1 sentence2024Neal v. City of Kingman, 169 Ariz. 133, 136 (1991); see Estate of Bohn v. Waddell, 174 Ariz. 239, 249-50 (App. 3 ALLEN v. ADOT Decision of the Court 1992). | 1 | 1 |
Calixto v. Industrial Commission of Arizonagreen2 sentences1991See Rouse v. Scottsdale Unified School Dist., 156 Ariz. 369, 371 , 752 P.2d 22, 24 (App. 1987); DeGroot v. Arizona Racing Comm’n, 141 Ariz. 331, 340 , 686 P.2d 1301, 1310 (App.1984); Calixto v. Industrial *137 Comm’n, 126 Ariz. 400, 402 , 616 P.2d 75, 77 (App.1980). 1991See Rouse v. Scottsdale Unified School Dist., 156 Ariz. 369, 371 , 752 P.2d 22, 24 (App. 1987); DeGroot v. Arizona Racing Comm’n, 141 Ariz. 331, 340 , 686 P.2d 1301, 1310 (App.1984); Calixto v. Industrial *137 Comm’n, 126 Ariz. 400, 402 , 616 P.2d 75, 77 (App.1980). | 1 | 1 |
DeGroot v. Arizona Racing Commissiongreen2 sentences1991See Rouse v. Scottsdale Unified School Dist., 156 Ariz. 369, 371 , 752 P.2d 22, 24 (App. 1987); DeGroot v. Arizona Racing Comm’n, 141 Ariz. 331, 340 , 686 P.2d 1301, 1310 (App.1984); Calixto v. Industrial *137 Comm’n, 126 Ariz. 400, 402 , 616 P.2d 75, 77 (App.1980). 1991See Rouse v. Scottsdale Unified School Dist., 156 Ariz. 369, 371 , 752 P.2d 22, 24 (App. 1987); DeGroot v. Arizona Racing Comm’n, 141 Ariz. 331, 340 , 686 P.2d 1301, 1310 (App.1984); Calixto v. Industrial *137 Comm’n, 126 Ariz. 400, 402 , 616 P.2d 75, 77 (App.1980). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.