Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Prendergast v. City of Tempe, 691 P.2d 726.

35 citing documents.

ROBERTS v. STATE Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
ROBERTS v. STATE Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
¶13 The superior court ruled that no individual proof is needed for a court to determine whether the pre- and post-shift activities constitute “work.” It based this decision on the assumption that the relevant inquiry is whether the pre- and post-shift activities are “primarily for the benefit of the employer.” (stating the test to determine whether time is compensable as work is whether it was “predominantly for the employer’s benefit or for the employee’s benefit”).
Weidert v. Precision Air Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Weidert v. Precision Air Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
(affirming fee award despite the plaintiff not specifically citing A.R.S.
Clinton Roberts v. State of Arizona 512 P.3d 1007 Ariz. 2022
Clinton Roberts v. State of Arizona 512 P.3d 1007 Ariz. 2022
¶14 In 1984, –21 (App. 1984), holding that meal periods for certain officers constituted compensable work.
State Ex Rel Brnovich v. City of tucson/dewit 399 P.3d 663 Ariz. 2017
State Ex Rel Brnovich v. City of tucson/dewit 399 P.3d 663 Ariz. 2017
(removal of city magistrates from office); Walker, 60 Ariz. at 237 , Luhrs, 52 Ariz. at 448 , -18 , (pay for police officers’ lunch hour).
Calcagno v. Ainbinder Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Calcagno v. Ainbinder Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Yamamoto v. Kercsmar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Yamamoto v. Kercsmar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- 23, -43 (App. 1984) (finding fee award based on A.R.S.
Ezell v. Quon 233 P.3d 645 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
King v. Titsworth 212 P.3d 935 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Distinguished King v. Titsworth 212 P.3d 935 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Hahn v. Pima County 24 P.3d 614 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Hahn v. Pima County 24 P.3d 614 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
¶ 17 Finally, , on which plaintiffs also rely, does not alter our approach or conclusion.
State v. McLamb 932 P.2d 266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. McLamb 932 P.2d 266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
The question remains whether the statute “has so completely occupied the field that it becomes the sole and exclusive law on the subject, leaving no room for any supplementary or additional local regulation.” Jacobson, 121 Ariz. at 69 , 588 P.2d at 362
Hall v. Schulte 836 P.2d 989 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Hall v. Schulte 836 P.2d 989 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. Stevens 802 P.2d 1071 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. Stevens 802 P.2d 1071 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
for the proposition that attorney’s fees can be awarded pursuant to A.R.S.
Able Distributing Co. v. James Lampe 773 P.2d 504 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Able Distributing Co. v. James Lampe 773 P.2d 504 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Lake Havasu Community Hosp., Inc. v. Arizona Title Ins.
Western Sun Contractors Co. v. Superior Court 766 P.2d 96 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Western Sun Contractors Co. v. Superior Court 766 P.2d 96 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
We held that there had been *232 “substantial compliance” with the local rule, and that “the City has neither been surprised or prejudiced.”
All Points Towing, Inc. v. City of Glendale 735 P.2d 145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
All Points Towing, Inc. v. City of Glendale 735 P.2d 145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
State v. Mercurio 736 P.2d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Mercurio 736 P.2d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Patton v. County of Mohave 741 P.2d 301 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Patton v. County of Mohave 741 P.2d 301 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
More recently, , this court held that police officers were working during meal periods and were therefore entitled to compensation for them.
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