Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Arizona Bd. of Regents for and on Behalf of University of Arizona v. State Ex Rel. State,…, 771 P.2d 880.
- ADVANTAGE POOL v. MILES Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
-
ADVANTAGE POOL v. MILES
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Fund Manager Adm’r, (“Where the legislature has specifically used a term in certain places within a statute and excluded it in another place, courts will not read that term into the section from which it was excluded.”).
- Accord Trucking, Inc. v. Fedex Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
- Accord Trucking, Inc. v. Fedex Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
- Legacy v. Citizens Clean Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
- Legacy v. Citizens Clean Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
- In Re Fredrick B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
-
In Re Fredrick B.
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
see also, e.g., Stambaugh, 242 1 A.R.S.
- Minch v. Azbn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
-
Minch v. Azbn
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Fund Manager Adm’r, -57 (App. 1989).
- Harvey v. Hon. kalauli/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
- Harvey v. Hon. kalauli/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
- Kelleher v. Storey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- Kelleher v. Storey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- In Re Celestino S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-
In Re Celestino S.
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State of Arizona Public Safety Retirement Fund Manager Administrator
- Dcb v. Foreman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- Dcb v. Foreman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- Sunrise v. Sallus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- Sunrise v. Sallus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- S&S Paving v. Berkley 372 P.3d 1036 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- S&S Paving v. Berkley 372 P.3d 1036 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
- Lorenz v. State 364 P.3d 475 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
- Lorenz v. State 364 P.3d 475 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
- Mortensen v. Gust Rosenfeld Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
-
Mortensen v. Gust Rosenfeld
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Fund Manager, (appellate court will affirm superior court’s decision if it is correct for any reason).
- Smith v. Almida Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
- Smith v. Almida Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
- Reyes v. Frank's Service & Trucking, LLC 334 P.3d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
- Reyes v. Frank's Service & Trucking, LLC 334 P.3d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
- Aprea II v. Hafter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
- Aprea II v. Hafter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
- Cooper v. Ross Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
- Cooper v. Ross Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
- Church of the Isaiah 58 Project of Arizona, Inc. v. La Paz County 314 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
- Church of the Isaiah 58 Project of Arizona, Inc. v. La Paz County 314 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
- BNSF Railway Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 268 P.3d 1138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
- BNSF Railway Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 268 P.3d 1138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
- Loftus v. Arizona State University Public Safety Personnel Retirement System Local Board 255 P.3d 1020 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
- Loftus v. Arizona State University Public Safety Personnel Retirement System Local Board 255 P.3d 1020 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
- Industrial Commission v. Old Republic Insurance 219 P.3d 285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
-
Industrial Commission v. Old Republic Insurance
219 P.3d 285
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Fund Manager Adm’r, , (“Where the legislature has specifically used a term in certain places within a statute and excluded it in another place, courts will not read that term into the section from which it was excluded.”) Because the legislature did not specifically provide that carriers will be taxed at
- Cicoria v. Cole 215 P.3d 402 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
- Cicoria v. Cole 215 P.3d 402 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
- Backus v. State 204 P.3d 399 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
- Backus v. State 204 P.3d 399 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
- Havasupai Tribe of the Havasupai Reservation v. Arizona Board of Regents 204 P.3d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
-
Havasupai Tribe of the Havasupai Reservation v. Arizona Board of Regents
204 P.3d 1063
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Fund Manager Adm’n., , (when “the legislature has specifically used a term in certain places within a statute and excluded it in another place, courts will not read that term *226 into the section from which it was excluded”).
- Michael Redhair v. Kinerk, Beal, Schmidt, Dyer & Sethi, P.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
-
Michael Redhair v. Kinerk, Beal, Schmidt, Dyer & Sethi, P.C.
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Fund Manager & Adm’r, 160 Ariz. 150, 157, (“Where the legislature has specifically used a term in certain places within a statute and excluded it in another place, courts will not read 5 ¶¶ 25-26, (finding parts of preamble to AEPA unconstitut