Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Bilagody v. Thorneycroft, 607 P.2d 965.

75 citing documents.

Horne v. Owens State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Horne v. Owens State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Peterson v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Peterson v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
–93 (App. 1979) (affirming superior court’s decision declining special action jurisdiction where appellant could challenge constitutionality of transportation department’s hearing procedures in an appeal from his license suspension).
Lallande v. Penzone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Lallande v. Penzone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
(noting that if the appellate court determines the superior court declined jurisdiction of the merits of the claim, then the sole issue on appeal is whether the superior court abused its discretion); Ariz. R.P.
Lewis v. Superior Court Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Lewis v. Superior Court Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
McMichael-gombar v. Phoenix Civil Service Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
McMichael-gombar v. Phoenix Civil Service Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Portillo-Diaz v. shinn/centurion Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Portillo-Diaz v. shinn/centurion Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Strojnik v. Brnovich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Strojnik v. Brnovich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
When a request for mandamus relief is initiated by complaint in superior court, “the judge must first exercise [] discretion and decide whether to consider the case on its merits.”
Finkel v. Az State Brd of Nursing Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Finkel v. Az State Brd of Nursing Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Atwood v. Ryan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Atwood v. Ryan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Burns v. City of Tucson 432 P.3d 953 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Burns v. City of Tucson 432 P.3d 953 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Bilagody v. Thorneycroft , , 92, , 969 (App. 1979).
Falcone Brothers & Associates, Inc. v. City of Tucson 381 P.3d 276 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Falcone Brothers & Associates, Inc. v. City of Tucson 381 P.3d 276 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Dema v. Atonna Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Dema v. Atonna Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Musselman v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Musselman v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Compassionate v. adhs/nelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Compassionate v. adhs/nelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(“As a general rule, an appellate court’s decision regarding whether or not it will entertain the merits of a non-statutory special action is a discretionary one.”).
Shaka v. Ryan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Shaka v. Ryan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State Ex Rel. Montgomery v. Karp 336 P.3d 753 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State Ex Rel. Montgomery v. Karp 336 P.3d 753 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Home Builders Ass'n of Cent. Ariz. v. Kard 199 P.3d 629 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Home Builders Ass'n of Cent. Ariz. v. Kard 199 P.3d 629 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
If so, then the determination of the merits may properly be reviewed.”
Dowling v. Stapley 179 P.3d 960 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Dowling v. Stapley 179 P.3d 960 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Flores v. Cooper Tire and Rubber Co. 178 P.3d 1176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Flores v. Cooper Tire and Rubber Co. 178 P.3d 1176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Fushek v. State 159 P.3d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Fushek v. State 159 P.3d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Files v. Bernal 22 P.3d 57 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Files v. Bernal 22 P.3d 57 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Kimble v. City of Page 20 P.3d 605 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Kimble v. City of Page 20 P.3d 605 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Pima County Assessor v. Arizona State Board of Equalization 987 P.2d 815 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Pima County Assessor v. Arizona State Board of Equalization 987 P.2d 815 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Bazzanella v. Tucson City Court 988 P.2d 157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Bazzanella v. Tucson City Court 988 P.2d 157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Amancio v. Forster 993 P.2d 1059 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Amancio v. Forster 993 P.2d 1059 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999