Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Webster v. State of Arizona Board of Regents, 599 P.2d 816.

61 citing documents.

SIMMS v. ARIZONA RACING COMMISSION Ariz. 2026
of Regents, –66 (App. 1979).
Stinnett v. Az Vmeb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Stinnett v. Az Vmeb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
of Regents, –66 (App. 1979).
Wales v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Wales v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Sun City v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Sun City v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
of Regents, -66 (App. 1979)) (citation omitted); Moore v. Title Ins.
State v. McCcd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State ex rel. Brnovich v. Maricopa County Community College District Board 395 P.3d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. McCcd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
of Regents, (declaring students seeking to prove domicile must show, by clear and convincing evidence, physical presence and intent to remain permanently).
State ex rel. Brnovich v. Maricopa County Community College District Board 395 P.3d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
§§ 15-1802 and -1802.01, 12 see Webster, 123 Ariz. at 365, the statute would be preempted by IIRIRA if it extended in-state tuition to aliens who are non-qualified under 8 U.S.C.
State v. Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Rivera Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
of Regents, -66 (App. 1979)).
Collins v. Azdwm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Collins v. Azdwm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Hon. harris/mitchell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Hon. harris/mitchell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
of Regents, -66, -19 (App. 1979)).
Gaveck v. Arizona State Board of Podiatry Examiners 215 P.3d 1114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Gaveck v. Arizona State Board of Podiatry Examiners 215 P.3d 1114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
of Regents, -66 , -19 (App.1979)).
Parkinson v. Guadalupe Public Safety Retirement Local Board 151 P.3d 557 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Parkinson v. Guadalupe Public Safety Retirement Local Board 151 P.3d 557 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
of Regents, 367-68 , 820-21 (App.1979)(Because committee heard testimony and judged witnesses’ credibility, court erred in substituting its judgment for that of committee.).
Kocher v. Department of Revenue 80 P.3d 287 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Kocher v. Department of Revenue 80 P.3d 287 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
of Regents, , (“As recognized by our courts, once physical presence has been established, the key factor in resolving the domicile issue is intent, and the existence of the requisite intent becomes a question of fact that is evidenced by the conduct of the person in question.”).
Siler v. Arizona Department of Real Estate 972 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Siler v. Arizona Department of Real Estate 972 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
of Regents, -66 , -19 (App.1979) (if record supports two inconsistent factual conclusions, substantial evidence will support administrative officer’s selection of either).
Pima County v. Pima County Merit System Commission 944 P.2d 508 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Pima County v. Pima County Merit System Commission 944 P.2d 508 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
RL Augustine Const. v. PEORIA SCHOOL DIST. 904 P.2d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
RL Augustine Const. v. PEORIA SCHOOL DIST. 904 P.2d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
R.L. Augustine Construction Co. v. Peoria Unified School District No. 11 904 P.2d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
R.L. Augustine Construction Co. v. Peoria Unified School District No. 11 904 P.2d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Schillerstrom v. State 885 P.2d 156 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Schillerstrom v. State 885 P.2d 156 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Sigmen v. Arizona Department of Real Estate 819 P.2d 969 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Sigmen v. Arizona Department of Real Estate 819 P.2d 969 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Elia v. Arizona State Board of Dental Examiners 812 P.2d 1039 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Elia v. Arizona State Board of Dental Examiners 812 P.2d 1039 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Ethridge v. Arizona State Board of Nursing 796 P.2d 899 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Ethridge v. Arizona State Board of Nursing 796 P.2d 899 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
of Regents, -66 , -19 (App.1979).
Williams v. Pima County 791 P.2d 1053 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Williams v. Pima County 791 P.2d 1053 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Munguia v. Department of Economic Security 765 P.2d 559 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Munguia v. Department of Economic Security 765 P.2d 559 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Williams v. Tucson Unified School District No. 1 760 P.2d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Williams v. Tucson Unified School District No. 1 760 P.2d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Webster v. State Board of Re *36 gents
Carley v. Arizona Board of Regents 737 P.2d 1099 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Carley v. Arizona Board of Regents 737 P.2d 1099 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Kuznicki v. Arizona Department of Transportation 732 P.2d 1119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Kuznicki v. Arizona Department of Transportation 732 P.2d 1119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Even when ‘two inconsistent factual conclusions could be supported by the record, then there is substantial evidence to support an administrative decision that elects either conclusion.’ -66 , -19 (App.1979).
Ontiveros v. Arizona Department of Transportation 729 P.2d 346 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986