Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Rutledge v. Arizona Board of Regents, 711 P.2d 1207.

44 citing documents.

Layton v. Layton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Layton v. Layton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
of Regents, () (recognizing the superior court’s broad discretion in the conduct and control of court proceedings).
Goetzinger-Amendt v. Goetzinger-Poe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Goetzinger-Amendt v. Goetzinger-Poe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Jane Doe I & II; And John Doe... v. Shaunice Warr 566 P.3d 342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
Jane Doe I & II; And John Doe... v. Shaunice Warr 566 P.3d 342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
Sierra Club v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
Sierra Club v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
of Regents, -57 (App. 1985)); see Or, Merriam-Webster, https://merriam-webster.com (last visited Nov.
Mac Kenzie v. Howerton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Mac Kenzie v. Howerton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
of Regents, (holding that parties are bound by their attorneys’ stipulations in a judicial proceeding unless relieved of them by the court).
Knight v. Ludwig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Knight v. Ludwig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
of Regents, (holding that parties are bound by their attorneys’ stipulations in a judicial proceeding unless relieved of them by the court).
Watson v. Peck Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Watson v. Peck Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Campbell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Campbell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
of Regents, -50 (App. 1985).
Williamsfield v. Stren Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Williamsfield v. Stren Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
7 WILLIAMSFIELD v. STREN Decision of the Court ¶24 in asserting the December 4, 2017 stipulations were binding on the Estate.
Simon v. Simon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Simon v. Simon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
of Regents, (citation omitted).
State of Arizona v. Louie Thomas MacHado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Louie Thomas MacHado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
of Regents, -46, -19 (App. 1985).
State v. Gastelum 130 P.3d 547 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Curtis v. Richardson 131 P.3d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Curtis v. Richardson 131 P.3d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State v. Gastelum 130 P.3d 547 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
of Regents, , (“A stipulation is an agreement, admission or concession made in a judicial proceeding by the parties or their attorneys, in respect to some matter incident to the proceedings, ordinarily for the purpose of avoiding delay, trouble and expense.”) (emphasis added).
Fillmore v. MARICOPA WATER PROCESSING 120 P.3d 697 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Fillmore v. MARICOPA WATER PROCESSING 120 P.3d 697 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Boynton v. Anderson 66 P.3d 88 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Boynton v. Anderson 66 P.3d 88 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
of Regents, -57 , -30 (App.1985)).
Hamblen v. Hamblen 54 P.3d 371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Hamblen v. Hamblen 54 P.3d 371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Marriage of Donlann v. MacGurn 55 P.3d 74 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Marriage of Donlann v. MacGurn 55 P.3d 74 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
of Regents, , (listing circumstances in which a stipulation may be set aside).
In Re Ryan A. 39 P.3d 543 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
In Re Ryan A. 39 P.3d 543 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
of Regents, -57 , -30 (App.1985) (“The word ‘or’ is defined as ‘[a] disjunctive particle used to express an alternative or to give a choice of one among two or more things.’ ” quoting Blacks Law Dictionary 1246 (rev. 4th ed.1968) (italics in original)).
State v. Seyrafi 32 P.3d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Seyrafi 32 P.3d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
of Regents, -57 , -30 (App.1985)(“The word ‘or’ is defined as ‘[a] dis *155 junctive particle used to express an alternative or to give a choice of one among two or more things.’ ”) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 1246 (rev. 4th ed.1968)).
State v. Pinto 880 P.2d 1139 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Pinto 880 P.2d 1139 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
of modifying the manner in which court>ordered payments are made ...” are stated on the face of the statute in the disjunctive, i.e. “until paid in full or until the defendant’s sentence expires.” The word “or,” as it is often used, is “[a] disjunctive particle used to express an alternative or to give a choice of one among two or more things.” -57 , -30 (App.1985) (emphasis in original).
Lewis v. N.J. Riebe Enterprises, Inc. 825 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1992
Lewis v. N.J. Riebe Enterprises, Inc. 825 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1992
Co., , , , Harsh Building Co. v. Bialac, 22 Ariz.App.
Mulhern v. City of Scottsdale 799 P.2d 15 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Mulhern v. City of Scottsdale 799 P.2d 15 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990