Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Stapert v. Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners, 108 P.3d 956.

56 citing documents.

In Re Termination of Parental Rights as to B.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2026
In Re Termination of Parental Rights as to B.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2026
Exam’rs, (special-action jurisdiction reserved for extraordinary circumstances and not available when equally plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by appeal exists).
Rynn v. Avondale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Rynn v. Avondale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
of Psychologist Examiners
Brady v. ades/esa Tax Unit Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Brady v. ades/esa Tax Unit Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Exam’rs, ¶ 7 (App. 2005).
Barriga v. Ades Precision Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Barriga v. Ades Precision Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Exam’rs, ¶ 7 (App. 2005), meaning we “effectuate the text if it is clear and unambiguous,” BSI Holdings, LLC v. Ariz. Dep’t of Transp., ¶ 9 (2018).
Phillip B. v. adcs/faust Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Phillip B. v. adcs/faust Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
of Psychologist Examiners, ¶ 7 (App. 2005) (“The rules for interpreting statutes apply equally to administrative regulations.”).
Portillo-Diaz v. shinn/centurion Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Portillo-Diaz v. shinn/centurion Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Exam’rs, ¶ 22 (App. 2005).
Cook v. Ryan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Cook v. Ryan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
of Psychologist Exam’rs, ¶ 22 (App. 2005).
Gray, ed.D. v. Abpe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Gray, ed.D. v. Abpe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
of Psychologist Exam’rs, ¶ 22 (App. 2005).
Grand Holdings v. Peoria Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Grand Holdings v. Peoria Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
of Psychologist Exam’rs, ¶ 22 (App. 2005).
Maryn B. and Zanielle G. v. Hon. Padilla/dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Maryn B. and Zanielle G. v. Hon. Padilla/dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
of Psychologist Examiners, see Samaritan Health Sys.
Claxton v. Aboec Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Claxton v. Aboec Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
of Psychologist Exam’rs, ¶ 21 (App. 2005), and we conduct a bifurcated review of the court’s ruling.
Johnson Utilities v. acc/swing First Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Johnson Utilities v. acc/swing First Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
of Psychologist Exam’rs, ¶ 22 (App. 2005).
Prince v. Adoc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Prince v. Adoc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
of Psychologist Exam’rs, ¶ 21 (App. 2005).
Magnotta v. Serra Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Magnotta v. Serra Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
of Psychologist Exam’rs, ¶ 21 (App. 2005) (“A court’s decision to decline or accept special-action jurisdiction is discretionary” and “is reserved for extraordinary circumstances.”) (citations omitted).
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Lemaire 395 P.3d 1116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Lemaire 395 P.3d 1116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
of Psychologist Exam’rs, ¶ 21 (App. 2005) (citations omitted).
State of Arizona v. Bhajanpal Chopra 387 P.3d 1282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Bhajanpal Chopra 387 P.3d 1282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Loma Mariposa v. Santa Cruz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Loma Mariposa v. Santa Cruz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
of Psychologist Exam’rs, -83, ¶ 25 (App. 2005) (holding that a plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, delivered by messenger service to the wrong agency, was untimely).
Gee v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Gee v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
of Psychologist Exam’rs, ¶ 22 (App. 2005).
AEA Federal Credit Union v. Yuma Funding, Inc. 346 P.3d 991 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
AEA Federal Credit Union v. Yuma Funding, Inc. 346 P.3d 991 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
of Psychologist Exam’rs, ¶ 24
Winckler v. Bnsf Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Winckler v. Bnsf Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
of Psychologist Exam’rs, ¶ 7, (principles of statutory interpretation apply equally to administrative regulations).
Flood Control v. Abc Sand Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Flood Control v. Abc Sand Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
of Psychologist Exam’rs, ¶ 3, (motion for reconsideration delivered to wrong address); Guminski v. Ariz. St.
Cooke v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 302 P.3d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Cooke v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 302 P.3d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
of Psychologist Exam’rs, ¶ 7 , Rice v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
Catalina Foothills Unif. Sch. Distr. No. 16 v. La Paloma Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Catalina Foothills Unif. Sch. Distr. No. 16 v. La Paloma Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
of Psychologist Exam’rs, (special-action jurisdiction reserved for “extraordinary circumstances” and “not available ‘where there is an equally plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by appeal’”), quoting State ex rel.
Steven H. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 173 P.3d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Steven H. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 173 P.3d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
of Psychologist Exam’rs, ¶ 7
State v. Soria 170 P.3d 710 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Soria 170 P.3d 710 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
of Psychologist Exam’rs, ¶ 7

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by