Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Godbey v. ROOSEVELT SCH. DIST. NO. 66, ETC., 638 P.2d 235.

47 citing documents.

Houston v. Penzone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Dist., but review any “underlying legal questions” de novo, Noohi v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., 146 F.4th 854, 863 (9th Cir. 2025).
WALDEN v. MESA UNIFIED Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
WALDEN v. MESA UNIFIED Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
No. 66 of Maricopa Cnty.
Horne v. Hobbs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Horne v. Hobbs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Plea v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Plea v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶40 Plaintiffs also rely on Godbey v. Roosevelt School District No. 66, arguing benefits vest when employees meet eligibility requirements and cannot be retroactively modified by the employer.
Plea v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Plea v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Clemente Ranch v. Johnstonbaugh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Clemente Ranch v. Johnstonbaugh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Ferrara v. 21st Century N. Am. Ins. Co. 429 P.3d 1171 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Ferrara v. 21st Century N. Am. Ins. Co. 429 P.3d 1171 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
No. 66 , , 16, , 238 (App. 1981).
Garza v. Hon. gama/swift 379 P.3d 1004 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Garza v. Hon. gama/swift 379 P.3d 1004 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
No. 66 of Maricopa County
Garza v. Swift Transportation Co. 213 P.3d 1008 Ariz. 2009
Garza v. Swift Transportation Co. 213 P.3d 1008 Ariz. 2009
No. 66 of Maricopa County, 17 (stating that trial court’s class action order is reviewed for abuse of discretion), with Ariz. R.P.
Kaman Aerospace Corp. v. Arizona Board of Regents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Kaman Aerospace Corp. v. Arizona Board of Regents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
No. 66 of Maricopa County, for the proposition that “the acts of the parties under the contract, before disputes arise, are the best evidence of the meaning of doubtful contractual terms.” It also argues “[t]he University’s conduct proves the parties[’] intent when they made the contract.”6 ¶23
Marriage of Cook v. Cook 104 P.3d 857 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Marriage of Cook v. Cook 104 P.3d 857 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
No. 66, , (accumulated paid sick leave); , (medical malpractice claim); Rio Rico Props., , (tax refunds); see also Thurston v. Judges’ Ret.
Facilitec Inc v. J Elliott Hibbs 80 P.3d 765 Ariz. 2003
Facilitec Inc v. J Elliott Hibbs 80 P.3d 765 Ariz. 2003
In support of this argument, Facilitec relies on two court of appeals opinions, Godbey v. Roosevelt School District No. 66 of Maricopa County, P.2d 235 (App. 1981), and Cactus Wren Partners v. Arizona Department of Building & Fire Safety, 177 Ariz. 559
Facilitec, Inc. v. Hibbs 59 P.3d 803 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Facilitec, Inc. v. Hibbs 59 P.3d 803 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Godbey v. Roosevelt School District No. 66 of Maricopa County, , h Nothing in the record before the Court shows that the legislature has expressly granted the Director the authority to delegate his authority to make final administrative decisions under the administrative appeals procedure.
ESI Ergonomic Solutions, LLC v. United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc. 50 P.3d 844 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
ESI Ergonomic Solutions, LLC v. United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc. 50 P.3d 844 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Kerr v. Killian 32 P.3d 408 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Kerr v. Killian 32 P.3d 408 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
No. 66 of Maricopa County, , Markiewicz v. Salt River Valley Water Users’ Ass’n
Wallace v. CASA GRANDE SC. BD. OF GOV. 909 P.2d 486 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
Wallace v. CASA GRANDE SC. BD. OF GOV. 909 P.2d 486 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
Smith v. City of Phoenix 858 P.2d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Smith v. City of Phoenix 858 P.2d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
No. 66, , Judge Smith reasons that on the commencement of his “employment contract” on July 6, 1988, he acquired a vested right to receive a salary throughout his four-year term calculated on the 95% formula, and that the Phoenix City Council unconstitutionally impaired his contract rights by altering
London v. Green Acres Trust 765 P.2d 538 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
London v. Green Acres Trust 765 P.2d 538 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Lennon v. First Nat’l Bank, 21 Ariz.App.
Tucson Unified School District No. 1 v. Tucson Education Ass'n 747 P.2d 602 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Tucson Unified School District No. 1 v. Tucson Education Ass'n 747 P.2d 602 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
The court, , stated: “ ‘[T]he general rule is that a municipal corporation, or a quasi-municipal corporation such as the District, may delegate to subordinate officers and boards powers and functions which are ministerial or administrative in nature, where there is a fixed and certain standard o
Britt v. Red Mesa Unified School District No. 27 748 P.2d 1195 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Britt v. Red Mesa Unified School District No. 27 748 P.2d 1195 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Godbey v. Roosevelt School *576 District No. 66
Continental Townhouses East Unit One Ass'n v. Brockbank 733 P.2d 1120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Continental Townhouses East Unit One Ass'n v. Brockbank 733 P.2d 1120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Fund Manager, Public Safety Personnel Retirement System v. City of Phoenix Police Department Public Safety Personnel Retirement System … 728 P.2d 1237 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Fund Manager, Public Safety Personnel Retirement System v. City of Phoenix Police Department Public Safety Personnel Retirement System … 728 P.2d 1237 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
No. 66, , (accumulated sick leave gave teachers a vested right to use it in accordance with the terms of their contract).
Bower v. Arizona State School for the Deaf & the Blind 704 P.2d 809 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Bower v. Arizona State School for the Deaf & the Blind 704 P.2d 809 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Cf. Godbey v. Roosevelt School District No. 66
Gilbert v. County of Mohave 650 P.2d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Gilbert v. County of Mohave 650 P.2d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
This court has recently held that “public employees’ benefits are not gratuities but are vested rights in the nature of deferred compensation.” Godbey v. Roosevelt School District No. 66 of Mari-copa County