Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite DeGroot v. Arizona Racing Commission, 686 P.2d 1301.

139 citing documents.

Robison v. Az Brd Dental Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
The trial court cannot sit as a “super agency” and substitute its own judgment for the agency’s “where factual questions and agency expertise are involved.” DeGroot v. Ariz. Racing Comm’n
Jhass Group L.L.C. v. Arizona Department of Financial Institutions 360 P.3d 1029 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Jhass Group L.L.C. v. Arizona Department of Financial Institutions 360 P.3d 1029 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
DeGroot v. Ariz. Racing Comm’n
Ruco v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Residential Utility Consumer Office v. Arizona Corp. Commission 355 P.3d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Residential Utility Consumer Office v. Arizona Corp. Commission 355 P.3d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
See DeGroot v. Ariz. Racing Comm’n, -36 , -06 (App.1984) (appellate court does not reweigh evidence to resolve perceived conflicts).
Ruco v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
See DeGroot v. Ariz. Racing Comm’n, -36, -06 (App. 1984) (appellate court does not reweigh evidence to resolve perceived conflicts).
Bozrah v. aroc/peterson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Bozrah v. aroc/peterson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶15 Bozrah is barred from raising the due process issue because Bozrah does not raise a valid jurisdictional argument.
Jm Homes v. Empire Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Jm Homes v. Empire Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
DeGroot v. Ariz. Racing Comm’n
Lipton v. Arizona Dental Board Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Lipton v. Arizona Dental Board Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
See DeGroot v. Ariz. Racing Comm’n, (“The general rule is that failure to raise an issue before an administrative tribunal precludes judicial review of that issue on appeal unless the issue is jurisdictional in nature.”).
Dodge v. Lake Havasu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Dodge v. Lake Havasu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
See DeGroot v. Ariz. Racing Comm’n, -36, -06 (App. 1984).
Collins v. Azdwm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Collins v. Azdwm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
DeGroot v. Ariz. Racing Comm’n, (citing Webster v. State Bd.
State v. Hon. harris/mitchell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Hon. harris/mitchell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(citing Webster v. State Bd.
Shah v. Az Brd Dental Exam Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Shah v. Az Brd Dental Exam Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(citing DeGroot v. Ariz. Racing Comm’n, ).
COMMITTEE FOR JUSTICE & FAIRNESS v. Arizona Secretary of State's Office 332 P.3d 94 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
COMMITTEE FOR JUSTICE & FAIRNESS v. Arizona Secretary of State's Office 332 P.3d 94 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
See Gaveck, 222 Ariz. at 436, ¶ 11, 215 P.3d at 1117 (“If an agency’s decision is supported by the record, substantial evidence exists to support the decision even if the record also supports a different conclusion.” (citing DeGroot v. Ariz. Racing Comm’n, )).
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
See DeGroot v. Ariz. Racing Comm’n, , (quoting Webster v. State Bd.
Ritland v. Arizona State Board of Medical Examiners 140 P.3d 970 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Ritland v. Arizona State Board of Medical Examiners 140 P.3d 970 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
DeGroot v. Arizona Racing Comm’n
Abdulkadir Hourani v. Benson Hospital Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Abdulkadir Hourani v. Benson Hospital Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
See DeGroot v. Ariz. Racing Comm’n, (failure to raise issue before administrative tribunal precludes judicial review of that issue unless issue is jurisdictional); see also Duffield v. Charleston Area Med.
Winters v. Arizona Board of Education 83 P.3d 1114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Winters v. Arizona Board of Education 83 P.3d 1114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
DeGroot v. Ariz. Racing Comm’n
Eastern Vanguard Forex Ltd. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 79 P.3d 86 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Eastern Vanguard Forex Ltd. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 79 P.3d 86 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
DeGroot v. Ariz. Racing Comm’n
Webb v. State Ex Rel. Arizona Bd. of Medical Examiners 48 P.3d 505 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Webb v. State Ex Rel. Arizona Bd. of Medical Examiners 48 P.3d 505 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
DeGroot v. Arizona Racing Comm’n
Shaffer v. Arizona State Liquor Board 4 P.3d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Shaffer v. Arizona State Liquor Board 4 P.3d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
No. 1, , DeGroot v. Arizona Racing Comm’n
Comeau v. Arizona State Board of Dental Examiners 993 P.2d 1066 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Comeau v. Arizona State Board of Dental Examiners 993 P.2d 1066 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Rather, in order to reverse the agency’s decision, the trial court must find that there was no substantial evidence to support the agency decision.” DeGroot v. Arizona Racing Comm’n, -36 , -06 (App.1984).
Pavlik v. Chinle Unified School District No. 24 985 P.2d 633 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Pavlik v. Chinle Unified School District No. 24 985 P.2d 633 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
See DeGroot v. Arizona Racing Comm’n
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
of Chiropractic Examiners, , reconciles conflicting evidence, DeGroot v. Arizona Racing Comm’n, , and weighs the sufficiency of the evidence presented.
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
Rather, in order to reverse the agency’s decision, the trial court must find that there was no substantial evidence to support the agency decision,” DeGroot v. Arizona Racing Comm’n, -36 , -06 (App.1984), or that the agency acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or abused its discretion.
Valenzuela v. Cowan 877 P.2d 1342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Valenzuela v. Cowan 877 P.2d 1342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Canon School Dist. 50 v. Wes Const. 848 P.2d 848 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Canon School Dist. 50 v. Wes Const. 848 P.2d 848 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Outdoor Systems, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Transportation 830 P.2d 475 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992