Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Eastern Vanguard Forex Ltd. v. Arizona Corp. Commission, 79 P.3d 86.

50 citing documents.

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
And courts had to affirm agency findings even “if either of two inconsistent factual conclusions [were] supported by the record.” E. Vanguard Forex, Ltd. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, ¶ 35 (App. 2003) (citing DeGroot v. Ariz. Racing Comm’n, ).
Ventures 7000 v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Ventures 7000 v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
E. Vanguard Forex, Ltd. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, ¶ 46 (App. 2003).
Wales v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Wales v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
E. Vanguard Forex, Ltd. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, ¶ 35 (App. 2003).
Simmons v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Simmons v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
E. Vanguard Forex, Ltd. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, ¶ 42 (App. 2003) (emphasis in original).
J. Ball Trust v. Phx Orchard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
J. Ball Trust v. Phx Orchard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
E. Vanguard Forex, Ltd. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, ¶ 19 (App. 2003).
Conklin v. Medtronic 418 P.3d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Conklin v. Medtronic 418 P.3d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
See E. Vanguard Forex, Ltd. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, ¶ 18 (App. 2003).
White Mountain Health Center, Inc. v. Maricopa County 386 P.3d 416 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
White Mountain Health Center, Inc. v. Maricopa County 386 P.3d 416 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Similarly, “[t]he party claiming preemption bears the burden of demonstrating that federal law preempts *239 state law,” and “must overcome the assumption that a federal law does not supersede the historic police powers of the states.” E. Vanguard Forex, Ltd. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, ¶ 18 , (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U.S. 431, 449 , 125 S.Ct.
Shudak v. Azcc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Shudak v. Azcc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
E. Vanguard Forex, Ltd. v. Arizona Corp. Comm’n, 6 SHUDAK v. AZCC Decision of the Court ¶ 35 (App. 2003); (noting an agency’s interpretation of a statute or regulation it implements ordinarily is given great weight).
Ashley E. v. Dcs, J.N. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Ashley E. v. Dcs, J.N. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See Chartone, ¶ 14 (App. 2004) (interpretation of court rules is a question of law that is reviewed de novo); E. Vanguard Forex, Ltd. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, ¶ 19 (App. 2003) (appellate court reviews questions of statutory interpretation de novo).
Denver v. Azcc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Denver v. Azcc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
§§ 44-1801, et seq., is to “be liberally construed to effect its remedial purpose of protecting the public interest.” E. Vanguard Forex, Ltd. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, ¶ 36 (App. 2003).
Miller v. Fnma Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Miller v. Fnma Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
E. Vanguard Forex, Ltd. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, ¶ 19 (App. 2003).
Lipton v. Arizona Dental Board Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Lipton v. Arizona Dental Board Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
E. Vanguard Forex, Ltd. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, ¶ 35
Yamaha v. Adot Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Yamaha v. Adot Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
n and in disregard for facts and circumstances; where there is room for two opinions, the action is not arbitrary or capricious if exercised honestly and upon due consideration, even though it may be believed that an erroneous conclusion has been reached.” see also E. Vanguard Forex, Ltd. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, ¶ 35, (substantial evidence exists to support agency decision if either of two inconsistent factual conclusions is supported by the record).
Kahn v. Arizona Medical Board 300 P.3d 552 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Kahn v. Arizona Medical Board 300 P.3d 552 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
E. Vanguard Forex, Ltd. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, ¶ 19
State v. Okun 296 P.3d 998 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Okun 296 P.3d 998 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
See, e.g., E. Vanguard Forex, Ltd. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, ¶ 18
Bridgestone Retail Tire Operations v. Industrial Commission 258 P.3d 271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Bridgestone Retail Tire Operations v. Industrial Commission 258 P.3d 271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
See E. Vanguard Forex, Ltd. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, ¶ 35 , see also Baca v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
Richard E. Lambert, Ltd. v. City of Tucson Dept. of Procurement Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Richard E. Lambert, Ltd. v. City of Tucson Dept. of Procurement Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
See Eastern Vanguard Forex, Ltd. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, (substantial evidence exists if conclusion supported by record).
Grand v. Nacchio 217 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
GRAND v. NACCHIO McMASTER QWEST COMMUNICATIONS Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Grand v. Nacchio 217 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
¶ 20 The Trust’s reliance on Eastern Vanguard Forex, , is unavailing for similar reasons.
GRAND v. NACCHIO McMASTER QWEST COMMUNICATIONS Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
14 ¶20 The Trust’s reliance on Eastern Vanguard Forex, P.3d 86 (App. 2003), is unavailing for similar reasons.
Sharpe v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System 207 P.3d 741 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Sharpe v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System 207 P.3d 741 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
E. Vanguard Forex, Ltd. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, -17, ¶¶ 52-62 , -04 (App.2003).
Ariz. Minority Coalition v. Indep. Redist. Comm'n 192 P.3d 409 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Ariz. Minority Coalition v. Indep. Redist. Comm'n 192 P.3d 409 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
See E. Vanguard Forex, ¶ 35 , (citation omitted).
State v. Barragan-Sierra 196 P.3d 879 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Barragan-Sierra 196 P.3d 879 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
See E. Vanguard Forex, Ltd. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, ¶ 19
Arizona Minority Coalition for Fair Redistricting v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission 192 P.3d 409 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Arizona Minority Coalition for Fair Redistricting v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission 192 P.3d 409 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
See E. Vanguard Forex, Ltd. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, ¶ 35 , (citation omitted).
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Action Marine, Inc. 161 P.3d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Action Marine, Inc. 161 P.3d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Cf. E. Vanguard Forex, Ltd. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, , (“we may look to federal court decisions for interpretive guidance” in areas such as state securities law).
Hutto v. Francisco 107 P.3d 934 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Hutto v. Francisco 107 P.3d 934 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Eastern Vanguard Forex, Ltd. v. Ariz. Corp. Com’n, ¶ 18 , (citations omitted).