Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Sanders v. Novick, 729 P.2d 960.

35 citing documents.

SIMMS v. ARIZONA RACING COMMISSION Ariz. 2026
See, (noting that courts may “substitute our judgment for agency 11 SIMMS V. ARIZONA RACING COMMISSION Opinion of the Court conclusions regarding the legal effect of [the agency’s] factual findings”).
Simms v. Simms 567 P.3d 92 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Simms v. Simms 567 P.3d 92 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Taking that cue, this court later confirmed that we “substitute our judgment for agency conclusions regarding the legal effect of its factual findings.” (citing Gardiner v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
Clemente Ranch v. Johnstonbaugh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Clemente Ranch v. Johnstonbaugh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
ANALYSIS I. Standard of Review ¶6 On appeal of an administrative decision, we “determine whether the record contains evidence to support the trial court’s judgment and in so doing reach the underlying question of whether the administrative agency acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or in abuse of its discretion.”
Simmons v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Simmons v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Comm’n, but are not bound by the Commission’s legal conclusions
Waltz Healing v. Adhs 433 P.3d 14 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Waltz Healing v. Adhs 433 P.3d 14 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Robison v. Az Brd Dental Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Robison v. Az Brd Dental Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
5 ROBISON v. AZ BRD DENTAL Decision of the Court
Jm Homes v. Empire Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Jm Homes v. Empire Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
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
Western States Petroleum, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 304 P.3d 539 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Western States Petroleum, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 304 P.3d 539 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
BNSF Railway Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 268 P.3d 1138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
BNSF Railway Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 268 P.3d 1138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
determine whether an agency erred in its determination of law, [and] substitute our judgment for agency conclusions regarding the legal effect of its factual findings.” , (citations omitted).
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 id.; -09 , -63 (App.1986).
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
4 In deciding whether Winters’ conduct constituted unprofessional conduct, we “may substitute our judgment for agency conclusions regarding the legal effect of its factual findings.”
Babe Investment v. Arizona Corp. Commission 939 P.2d 425 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Babe Investment v. Arizona Corp. Commission 939 P.2d 425 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Carondelet Health Services v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System Administration 930 P.2d 544 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Carondelet Health Services v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System Administration 930 P.2d 544 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Wildwood Hills Mobile Home Park v. Arizona Department of Building & Fire Safety 885 P.2d 131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Wildwood Hills Mobile Home Park v. Arizona Department of Building & Fire Safety 885 P.2d 131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Samaritan Health Services v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System Administration 875 P.2d 193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Samaritan Health Services v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System Administration 875 P.2d 193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Schade v. Department of Transportation 857 P.2d 1314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Schade v. Department of Transportation 857 P.2d 1314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Bills v. Arizona State Board of Education 819 P.2d 952 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Bills v. Arizona State Board of Education 819 P.2d 952 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Therefore, the trial court’s review is limited .to whether the agency acted “arbitrarily, capriciously or in abuse of its discretion.”