Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Herzberg v. David, 555 P.2d 677.

35 citing documents.

Haralson v. Fisher Surveying, Inc. 31 P.3d 114 Ariz. 2001
Haralson v. Fisher Surveying, Inc. 31 P.3d 114 Ariz. 2001
Quality, , ¶¶ 20-21 (1999), The dissent contends that the legislature’s acquiescence in Herzberg[ v. David, , ] is suggestive of legislative intent.
Lombardo v. Albu 4 P.3d 395 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Lombardo v. Albu 4 P.3d 395 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
The statement is Red CarpetrBarry that real estate regulations “have the force and effect of law” is taken out of context from Herzberg v. David, 27 Ariz.App; 418, overruled by Southwestern Paint & Varnish Co. v. Arizona Dep’t of Env.
Southwestern Paint & Varnish Co. v. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 976 P.2d 872 Ariz. 1999
Southwestern Paint & Varnish Co. v. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 976 P.2d 872 Ariz. 1999
A. The Conflict ¶ 5 , judges of Division Two sitting in a Division One case held that a party aggrieved by an administrative decision must use a rehearing procedure as a condition precedent to judicial review.
Southwestern Paint & Varnish Co. v. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 951 P.2d 1232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Southwestern Paint & Varnish Co. v. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 951 P.2d 1232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Medina v. Arizona Department of Transportation 916 P.2d 1130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Sanchez v. Ryan 870 P.2d 1184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Sanchez v. Ryan 870 P.2d 1184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Administrative rules and regulations may have the force and effeet of law, , and therefore may be subject to the ex post facto prohibition.
Collins v. State 803 P.2d 130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Collins v. State 803 P.2d 130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Boyce v. City of Scottsdale 756 P.2d 934 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Boyce v. City of Scottsdale 756 P.2d 934 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Sanchez-O'Brien Minerals Corp. v. State 717 P.2d 937 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Sanchez-O'Brien Minerals Corp. v. State 717 P.2d 937 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Oliver v. State Land Department 692 P.2d 305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Oliver v. State Land Department 692 P.2d 305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Schmitz v. Arizona State Board of Dental Examiners 684 P.2d 918 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Schmitz v. Arizona State Board of Dental Examiners 684 P.2d 918 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Wickman v. Arizona State Board of Osteopathic Examiners 674 P.2d 891 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Wickman v. Arizona State Board of Osteopathic Examiners 674 P.2d 891 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
In its opening brief before this court, , the board argues that the superior court was precluded from considering the alleged variance because this issue was not first raised before the board.
Farmers Investment Co. v. Arizona State Land Department 666 P.2d 469 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Farmers Investment Co. v. Arizona State Land Department 666 P.2d 469 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Polaris International Metals Corp. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 652 P.2d 1023 Ariz. 1982
Polaris International Metals Corp. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 652 P.2d 1023 Ariz. 1982
Arizona Law Enforcement Merit System Council v. Dann 652 P.2d 168 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Arizona Law Enforcement Merit System Council v. Dann 652 P.2d 168 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Red Carpet-Barry & Associates, Inc. v. Apex Associates, Inc. 635 P.2d 1224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Red Carpet-Barry & Associates, Inc. v. Apex Associates, Inc. 635 P.2d 1224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Wallis v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 617 P.2d 534 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Wallis v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 617 P.2d 534 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
§ 28-741); , (party failed to file motion for rehearing of the final administrative decision, a prerequisite for superior court review of Real Estate Commission decisions); Campbell v. Chatwin, 4 Ariz.App.
Foremost Life Insurance v. Trimble 580 P.2d 360 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Foremost Life Insurance v. Trimble 580 P.2d 360 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
a case involving an appeal from a determination made by the State Real Estate Commissioner, wherein he stated: “If a rehearing procedure is provided, either by statute or rule, a party aggrieved by an administrative decision must avail himself of such administrative review remedy as a condition