Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Zavala v. Arizona State Personnel Board, 766 P.2d 608.

25 citing documents.

Carranza v. Gonzales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Carranza v. Gonzales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-65, -17 (App. 1987) (applying supreme court decision retroactively where that decision did not otherwise specify that it would only apply prospectively).
Berndt v. Arizona Department of Corrections 363 P.3d 141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Mohr v. Murphy Elementary Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Explained Mohr v. Murphy Elementary Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Finally, contrary to Mohr’s argument, the Board had the authority to rescind the unpaid suspension and terminate his employment.10 when a board rescinds an unpaid suspension, reimburses lost pay, and then terminates the employee, the termination is “not a second disciplinary action, but a substitution for the first.” Therefore, the superior court correctly found no accord and 10 In response to the Board’
Blancarte v. Arizona Department of Transportation 282 P.3d 442 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Blancarte v. Arizona Department of Transportation 282 P.3d 442 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
James Colt Jones v. Cochise County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
James Colt Jones v. Cochise County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Bd., (questioning “whether a lower court should .
Dahnad v. Buttrick 36 P.3d 742 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Dahnad v. Buttrick 36 P.3d 742 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Bd., -63 , -15 (App.1988) (permanent status employee who does not pose a significant hazard on the job is entitled to pretermination notice and hearing).
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
State v. Sanchez 892 P.2d 212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Sanchez 892 P.2d 212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Davis v. Cessna Aircraft Corp. 893 P.2d 26 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Davis v. Cessna Aircraft Corp. 893 P.2d 26 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
-65 , -17 (App.1988) (supp. *37 opinion) (“ ‘[UJnless otherwise specified, Arizona appellate opinions in civil cases operate both retroactively and prospectively.’ ”) ( , (supp. opinion)).
Johns v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 817 P.2d 20 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Johns v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 817 P.2d 20 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Elia v. Arizona State Board of Dental Examiners 812 P.2d 1039 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Elia v. Arizona State Board of Dental Examiners 812 P.2d 1039 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Williams v. Pima County 791 P.2d 1053 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Williams v. Pima County 791 P.2d 1053 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Elgin v. Great-West Life Assurance Co. 786 P.2d 1027 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Elgin v. Great-West Life Assurance Co. 786 P.2d 1027 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
In a , we questioned whether any lower court ought ever employ the Chevron Oil criteria to limit the opinion of a higher court to prospective application.