Cited by

Dist., (“the implication of waiver is appropriate” where an appellant attempts to raise a substantive issue for the first time after appearing before an administrative tribunal that was competent to hear it)).

In Rouse v. Scottsdale Unified School District No. 48, the court stated that “[t]he precise question in this case is whether simply joining investigative/prosecutorial and adjudicative functions results in a partial decision maker.

No. 48, due process is violated if the decisionmaker’s situation “would offer a possible temptation to the average man as a judge to forget the burden of proof required .

No. 48, P.2d 22 (App. 1987).

No. 48, (absent showing of actual bias or partiality, due process not violated when school board assumed investigative/prosecutorial and adjudicative roles).

Dist., , (holding that determining a board’s competence to review an administrative hearing is “akin to a jurisdictional question” and thus is reviewable by an appellate court even though not raised before the board).

Dist., , Arizona Dept. of Pub.

No. 48, , the school board was not acting as an adversary, but solely as an adjudicator because the issue before it was whether to terminate a teacher's employment, and that question was instituted by the staff at the teacher's high school, not the school board.

(failure to raise issue before admimstrative tribunal constitutes waiver).

No. 48, , the school board was not acting as an adversary, but solely as an adjudicator because the issue before it was whether to terminate a teacher’s employment, and that question was instituted by the staff at the teacher’s high school, not the school board.

DeGroot v. Arizona Racing Comm’n, , Calixto v. Industrial *137 Comm’n