Cited by

However, Hurst dealt with a statutory scheme that allowed an appellant to appeal an administrative decision to the superior court on the grounds that the order was “[b]ased on violation of any constitutional provision.” 125 Ariz. at 392-93; (revenue department has authority to apply constitutional doctrines when legislature authorized it to consider “any legal theory, including a constitutional one”).

See Kendall, 98 Ariz. at 334; ¶ 20 (App. 2003) (finding that the revenue department had authority to apply constitutional doctrines in deciding whether a taxpayer received the proper tax credit because the legislature authorized it to consider “any legal theory, including a constitutional one”).

¶ 9 (App. 2003) (citations omitted).

“[L]itigants may not seek ‘judicial relief for a supposed or threatened injury until the prescribed administrative remedy has been exhausted.” ¶ 9 (App. 2003) (citing cases).

¶ 14 (App. 2003) (“[T]ax matters must be exhausted within [the Department] before being brought in superior court.”); (“A party’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies deprives the superior court of authority to hear the party’s claim.”).

“According to the doctrine of exhaustion of remedies, ‘litigants may not seek judicial relief for a supposed or threatened injury until the prescribed administrative remedy has been exhausted.’” quoting Medina v. Ariz. Dep’t of Transp., 13 FALCONE BROS. v. CITY OF TUCSON Opinion of the Court (emphasis added).

¶19 “When ‘jurisdictional fact issues are not intertwined with fact issues raised by a plaintiff’s claim on the merits, the resolution of those jurisdictional fact issues is for the trial court.’” -42 (App. 2003)

(courts should avoid deciding constitutional issues when other principles of law are controlling and determinative); (noting “traditional and proper 9 We construe the statutes in this manner based on the language used by the legislature and our effort to harmonize § 16-918 with § 16-924.

Coconino County v. Antco, Inc., ¶ 8 , ¶ 9

Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies ¶ 31 SOVA contends that a party should not be required to exhaust administrative remedies when such an effort would be futile

Exam’r of State of Ariz., (superior court properly determined jurisdictional bounds of administrative agency even though agency had not issued “final decision” within definition of § 12-901(2)); -44 (App. 2003) (doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies not applicable where subject matter jurisdiction of agency contested); State v. Board of Tech.

See Campbell, 120 Ariz. at 429 , 586 P.2d at 990 ; ¶ 10 , (citation omitted); U.S. v. W. Pac.

511 ¶ 9, (citations omitted).