Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite School Dist. No. 69 of Maricopa County v. Altherr, 458 P.2d 537.

42 citing documents.

Snyder v. Arizona Board of Regents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Snyder v. Arizona Board of Regents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Double AA Builders, Ltd. v. Grand State Construction L.L.C. 114 P.3d 835 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Double AA Builders, Ltd. v. Grand State Construction L.L.C. 114 P.3d 835 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
In School District No. 69 , disapproved in part on other grounds by Board of Trustees of Marana Elementary School, District No. 6 v. Wildermuth, 16 Ariz.App.
Arizona Consumers Council v. Arizona Corp. Commission 22 P.3d 905 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Arizona Consumers Council v. Arizona Corp. Commission 22 P.3d 905 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
No. 69 , overruled in part on other grounds by Board of Trustees of Marana Elem.
Johnson International, Inc. v. City of Phoenix 967 P.2d 607 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Johnson International, Inc. v. City of Phoenix 967 P.2d 607 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Berry v. Foster 883 P.2d 470 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Berry v. Foster 883 P.2d 470 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Bank One, Arizona v. Rouse 887 P.2d 566 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Bank One, Arizona v. Rouse 887 P.2d 566 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Neal v. City of Kingman 810 P.2d 572 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Neal v. City of Kingman 810 P.2d 572 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Schade v. Diethrich 760 P.2d 1050 Ariz. 1988
Schade v. Diethrich 760 P.2d 1050 Ariz. 1988
See also School District No. 69 v. Altherr
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
Godbey v. ROOSEVELT SCH. DIST. NO. 66, ETC. 638 P.2d 235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Godbey v. ROOSEVELT SCH. DIST. NO. 66, ETC. 638 P.2d 235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
438 , School District No. 69
Campbell v. Harris 638 P.2d 1355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Campbell v. Harris 638 P.2d 1355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Oracle School District No. 2 v. Mammoth High School District No. 88 633 P.2d 450 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Oracle School District No. 2 v. Mammoth High School District No. 88 633 P.2d 450 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
See School District No. 69 v. Altherr
Mish v. Tempe School District No. 3 609 P.2d 73 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Mish v. Tempe School District No. 3 609 P.2d 73 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
This statement was made in clarification and disapproval of dictum in School District No. 69 , that appeared to say a school district could never be bound by estoppel.
Porta House, Inc. v. Scottsdale Auto Lease, Inc. 584 P.2d 579 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Porta House, Inc. v. Scottsdale Auto Lease, Inc. 584 P.2d 579 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Scottsdale Auto Lease refers us to School District No. 69 v. Altherr, , in support of the proposition that the doctrine is available against a school district where there is a concurrence of the nine requisite elements of fraud.
Herz & Lewis, Inc. v. Union Bank 528 P.2d 188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
Herz & Lewis, Inc. v. Union Bank 528 P.2d 188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
School District No. 69 v. Altherr
Board of Education v. Scottsdale Education Ass'n 498 P.2d 578 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Board of Education v. Scottsdale Education Ass'n 498 P.2d 578 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
As was stated in the case of School District No. 69 , (although in a different factual context): “A public office is considered a public-agency or trust, created in the interest and for the benefit of the people, i. e., public officers, are servants of the people.
Pendley v. Mingus Union High School District No. 4 498 P.2d 586 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Pendley v. Mingus Union High School District No. 4 498 P.2d 586 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
See School District No. 69 v. Altherr, , on authority of school boards.
School District No. One of Pima County v. Lohr 498 P.2d 512 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
School District No. One of Pima County v. Lohr 498 P.2d 512 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
School District No. 69 v. Altherr
Tiffany Incorporated v. WMK Transit Mix, Inc. 493 P.2d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Tiffany Incorporated v. WMK Transit Mix, Inc. 493 P.2d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Waugh v. Lennard, supra; School District No. 69
BOARD OF TR. OF MARANA EL. SCH. v. Wildermuth 492 P.2d 420 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
BOARD OF TR. OF MARANA EL. SCH. v. Wildermuth 492 P.2d 420 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Inasmuch, however, as the parties devoted much of their argument to the effect of Section 90, we feel constrained to comment on what appears to be a misapprehension created by a dictum in the case of School District No. 69
Carlson v. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 6 OF MARICOPA CTY. 468 P.2d 944 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Carlson v. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 6 OF MARICOPA CTY. 468 P.2d 944 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
School District #6 , School District No. 69