Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Ayala v. Hill, 664 P.2d 238.

30 citing documents.

STANT v. CITY OF MARICOPA EMPLOYEE MERIT BOARD 319 P.3d 1002 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
STANT v. CITY OF MARICOPA EMPLOYEE MERIT BOARD 319 P.3d 1002 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Rash v. Town of Mammoth 315 P.3d 1234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Rash v. Town of Mammoth 315 P.3d 1234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Council, (same); (local rules made appeal by ARA applicable);4 (considering appeal pursuant to ARA 3See A.R.S.
Grosvenor Holdings v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Grosvenor Holdings v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
No. 11, P.2d 554 (1997), P.2d 238 (App. 1983), support its position.
American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees v. City of Phoenix 142 P.3d 234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees v. City of Phoenix 142 P.3d 234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
§§ 12-120.21(A)(1) (2003), -2101(B) (2003)
Stapert v. Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners 108 P.3d 956 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Stapert v. Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners 108 P.3d 956 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
( , was derived from a statute that granted the original power to rehear and “not from broader inherent powers vested in the agency”).
City of Phoenix v. Phoenix Employment Relations Board 86 P.3d 917 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
City of Phoenix v. Phoenix Employment Relations Board 86 P.3d 917 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Norgord v. State Ex Rel. Berning 33 P.3d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Norgord v. State Ex Rel. Berning 33 P.3d 1166 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
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
As for the trial court’s conclusions of law, “this court is not bound by that finding and is free to draw its own legal conclusions from the evidence presented.”
Hamilton v. City of Mesa 916 P.2d 1136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Hamilton v. City of Mesa 916 P.2d 1136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Alexander v. Fund Manager, Public Safety Personnel Retirement System 804 P.2d 122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Alexander v. Fund Manager, Public Safety Personnel Retirement System 804 P.2d 122 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
this court was asked to decide whether the Maricopa County Law Enforcement Officers’ Merit System Commission had authority to rehear and rede-cide a disciplinary action previously ruled upon by the commission.
Pima County Sheriff's Department v. Smith 760 P.2d 1095 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Distinguished Pima County Sheriff's Department v. Smith 760 P.2d 1095 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Because Justice and Peters both involved assertions that specific findings were required and not merely that the respective reviewing bodies were required to state the standard of review applied, , which involved a motion for reconsideration directed toward the administrative body reviewing termination based upon a new ground not previously considered by the administrative body, is also not dispositive of this matter.
Arkules v. BD. OF ADJUST. OF PARADISE VALLEY 728 P.2d 657 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Arkules v. BD. OF ADJUST. OF PARADISE VALLEY 728 P.2d 657 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Caldwell v. ARIZONA STATE BD. OF DENTAL EXAM. 670 P.2d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Caldwell v. ARIZONA STATE BD. OF DENTAL EXAM. 670 P.2d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Ayala v. Hill, 136 * at 90, at 240 (Ct.App.