Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Bilagody v. Thorneycroft, 607 P.2d 965.
- State ex rel. Romley v. Johnson 993 P.2d 453 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
- State ex rel. Romley v. Johnson 993 P.2d 453 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
- Tire Shredders, Inc. v. Pima County 965 P.2d 86 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
-
Tire Shredders, Inc. v. Pima County
965 P.2d 86
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
DISCUSSION ¶6 On appeal from a special action, we conduct a two-part review of the superior court’s rulings, first determining whether the court “in its discretion assumed jurisdiction of the merits of the claim.”
- GST Tucson Lightwave, Inc. v. City of Tucson 949 P.2d 971 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
- GST Tucson Lightwave, Inc. v. City of Tucson 949 P.2d 971 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
- Lewis v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 925 P.2d 751 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
- Lewis v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 925 P.2d 751 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
- State v. Johnson 911 P.2d 527 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
- State v. Johnson 911 P.2d 527 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
- State v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR CTY. OF YAVAPAI 878 P.2d 1381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
- State v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR CTY. OF YAVAPAI 878 P.2d 1381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
- Hamilton v. Municipal Court of Mesa 788 P.2d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
- Hamilton v. Municipal Court of Mesa 788 P.2d 107 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
- Ayala v. Hill 664 P.2d 238 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
-
Ayala v. Hill
664 P.2d 238
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
§ 7.3 Arizona Appellate Handbook.
- Garcia v. City of South Tucson 663 P.2d 596 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
- Martin v. Super. Ct. in & for Cty. of Maricopa 660 P.2d 859 Ariz. 1983
-
Martin v. Super. Ct. in & for Cty. of Maricopa
660 P.2d 859
Ariz. 1983
Arizona Highway Dept. Motor Vehicle Division, , (suspension of license for refusal to take chemical test is not a denial of equal protection even though the department may order driver training without suspension for one convicted of driving while intoxicated); , (due process does not require that the hearing be held at a location most convenient to indigent motorist nor does it require the state to finance his costs even though his indigency may prevent him from participating to same extent as
- Garcia v. City of South Tucson 663 P.2d 596 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
- Silver v. Rose 661 P.2d 189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
- Northern Propane Gas Co. v. Kipps 622 P.2d 469 Ariz. 1980
- Northern Propane Gas Co. v. Kipps 622 P.2d 469 Ariz. 1980