Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Save Our Valley Ass'n v. Arizona Corp. Commission, 165 P.3d 194.

33 citing documents.

Gabriel Garibay v. Hon. Kellie Johnson William Fox, Az Constable Ethics Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
Gabriel Garibay v. Hon. Kellie Johnson William Fox, Az Constable Ethics Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
Save Our Valley Ass’n v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n
Tanner v. woloszyn/mcdaniels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Tanner v. woloszyn/mcdaniels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Save our Valley Ass’n v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, -19, ¶ 6 (App. 2007).
State v. Robinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Robinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Save Our Valley Ass’n v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, –19, ¶ 6 (App. 2007) (as amended).
Roman Jr. v. Nationstar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Roman Jr. v. Nationstar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
(quoting Save Our Valley Ass’n v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, –19, ¶ 6 (App. 2007)).
Rodriguez v. Lytle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Rodriguez v. Lytle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Save Our Valley Ass’n v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, -19, ¶ 6 (App. 2007).
Martin v. Staheli 457 P.3d 53 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Martin v. Staheli 457 P.3d 53 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Save Our Valley Ass’n v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, ¶ 6 (App. 2007).
Hees v. Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Hees v. Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
See Save Our Valley Ass’n v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, -19, ¶ 6 (App. 2007).
State of Arizona v. Darrel Peter Pandeli 394 P.3d 2 Ariz. 2017
City of Phoenix v. Glenayre Electronics, Inc. 375 P.3d 1189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
City of Phoenix v. Glenayre Electronics, Inc. 375 P.3d 1189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See Shaw v. CTVT Motors, Inc., ¶ 8 (App. 2013) (motion for judgment on the pleadings) (citing Save Our Valley Ass’n v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, -19, ¶ 6 (App. 2007)); Andrews ex rel.
Fnma v. Hamilton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Fnma v. Hamilton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
lt and abused [its] judicial discretion,” and that the court “lacked discretion to reconsider [sic] [FNMA]’s motion for reconsideration.” I. Judgment on the Pleadings ¶10 In reviewing a judgment on the pleadings, we “accept as true the factual allegations of the complaint, but review the trial court’s legal conclusions de novo.” Save Our Valley Ass’n v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, -19, ¶ 6 (App. 2007).
Bank of America v. Allen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Bank of America v. Allen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Save Our Valley Ass’n v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, –19, ¶ 6, –97 (App. 2007).
Austin v. Chandler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Austin v. Chandler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Save Our Valley Ass’n v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, ¶6
Estate v. Recoveryet Al. 326 P.3d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Estate v. Recoveryet Al. 326 P.3d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Save Our Valley Ass’n v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, ¶ 6, (citation omitted).
Cook v. Town of Pinetop-Lakeside 303 P.3d 67 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Cook v. Town of Pinetop-Lakeside 303 P.3d 67 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
§§ 12-521 to -529 (2003); Save Our Valley Ass’n v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, ¶ 22 , (“Under the principles of statutory construction, specific statutes control genera] statutes.”).
Shaw v. CTVT Motors, Inc. 300 P.3d 907 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Shaw v. CTVT Motors, Inc. 300 P.3d 907 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
In reviewing a defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, “we accept as true the factual allegations of the complaint, but review the trial court’s legal conclusions de novo.” Save Our Valley Ass’n v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, -19, ¶ 6 , -97 (App.2007).
STATE EX REL. INDUS. COM'N v. Galloway 230 P.3d 708 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
STATE EX REL. INDUS. COM'N v. Galloway 230 P.3d 708 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
¶ 22 , ("Under the principles of statutory construction, specific statutes control general statutes.").
In Re Nickolas T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
In Re Nickolas T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
The state is also correct that “[u]nder the principles of statutory construction, specific statutes control general statutes.” Save Our Valley Ass’n v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by