Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Petras v. Arizona State Liquor Board, 631 P.2d 1107.
- 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
- Plowman v. Arizona State Liquor Board 732 P.2d 222 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
- Plowman v. Arizona State Liquor Board 732 P.2d 222 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
- Taylor v. ARIZ. LAW ENFORCEMENT MERIT SYSTEM 731 P.2d 95 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
- Taylor v. ARIZ. LAW ENFORCEMENT MERIT SYSTEM 731 P.2d 95 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
- Maricopa County v. Gottsponer 723 P.2d 716 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
-
Maricopa County v. Gottsponer
723 P.2d 716
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
the Liquor Board revoked the appellant’s liquor license.
- Mathis v. Liquor Board 707 P.2d 974 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
-
Mathis v. Liquor Board
707 P.2d 974
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
quoting Tucson Public Schools, District No. 1 of Pima County v. Green, 17 Ariz.App.
- Bear v. Nicholls 691 P.2d 326 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
-
Bear v. Nicholls
691 P.2d 326
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
An administrative penalty is only excessive if it is “so disproportionate to the offense, in the light of all the circumstances, as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness.” , quoting, 17 Cameron St.
- Marlar v. State 666 P.2d 504 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
-
Marlar v. State
666 P.2d 504
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
anner, we review the record to determine whether there has been ‘unreasoning action, without consideration and in disregard for facts and circumstances; where there is room for two opinions, the action is not arbitrary or capricious if exercised honestly and upon due consideration, even though it may be believed that an erroneous conclusion has been reached.’ , (quoting from Tucson Public Schools v. Green, 17 Ariz.App.