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.

96 citing documents.

Save Our Valley Ass'n v. Arizona Corp. Commission 165 P.3d 194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Save Our Valley Ass'n v. Arizona Corp. Commission 165 P.3d 194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Fund Manager, , (when legislature specifically uses a term in certain places within statute and excludes it from another place, courts do not read the term into the section from which it was excluded)).
Yarbrough v. Montoya-Paez 147 P.3d 755 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Yarbrough v. Montoya-Paez 147 P.3d 755 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
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.”)
Stapert v. Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners 108 P.3d 956 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Stapert v. Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners 108 P.3d 956 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Fund Manager Adm’r, , (same).
Parrot v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. 108 P.3d 922 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Parrot v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. 108 P.3d 922 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Examiners, , (stating that when a statute uses a specific phrase in some sections but not in others, a court cannot read that phrase into the section from which it was excluded); , (same).
Reinke v. Alliance Towing 88 P.3d 1154 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Reinke v. Alliance Towing 88 P.3d 1154 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Fund Manager, , (“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.”); see also Paragon Health Servs., Inc. v. Cent.
Simpson v. Owens 85 P.3d 478 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Simpson v. Owens 85 P.3d 478 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Fund Adm’r., , ); see also Patterson v. Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office
State v. Gonzales 80 P.3d 276 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Gonzales 80 P.3d 276 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Fund Manager Adm’r, , ).
Citadel Care Center v. Arizona Department of Revenue 25 P.3d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Citadel Care Center v. Arizona Department of Revenue 25 P.3d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Fund Manager, , (“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.”).
Mead v. Holzmann 8 P.3d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Mead v. Holzmann 8 P.3d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Safety Retirement 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.”) (citation omitted)
Luchanski v. Officer J.L. Congrove 971 P.2d 636 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Luchanski v. Officer J.L. Congrove 971 P.2d 636 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Safety Retirement Fund Manager Adm’r
Knauss v. DND Neffson Co. 963 P.2d 271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Knauss v. DND Neffson Co. 963 P.2d 271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
(‘“The test of indispensability therefore is whether the absent person’s interest in the controversy is such that no final judgment or decree can be entered which will do justice between the parties actually before the court, without injuriously affecting the rights of others not br
Murphy v. Board of Medical Examiners 949 P.2d 530 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Murphy v. Board of Medical Examiners 949 P.2d 530 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
(discussing the definition *449 of “administrative decision”).
Special Fund Division v. Industrial Commission 909 P.2d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Special Fund Division v. Industrial Commission 909 P.2d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Public Safety Retirement Fund Manager Adm’r, , the latter interpretation would defeat the purpose of the written records requirement: if the written record establishing employer knowledge does not precede the injury, then apportionment would always be available as soon as the employer acquires a written medical report, occasio
Southwest Ambulance, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Health Services 902 P.2d 1362 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Southwest Ambulance, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Health Services 902 P.2d 1362 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Safety Retirement Fund Manager Adm’r, , (discussing the definition of “administrative decision” and the requirement to proceed under the Administrative Review Act).
JV-132324 v. Superior Court 890 P.2d 632 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
JV-132324 v. Superior Court 890 P.2d 632 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Safety Retirement Fund Manager Adm’r, , (A void administrative decision is subject to “collateral” attack); Cooper v. Commonwealth Title, 15 Ariz.App.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Lindsey 885 P.2d 144 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Lindsey 885 P.2d 144 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Fund Mgr., , (sub-parts of same statute were interpreted differently when court refused to read previously used term into subpart from which it was excluded).
Alaface v. National Investment Co. 892 P.2d 1375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Alaface v. National Investment Co. 892 P.2d 1375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Public Safety Retirement Fund *594 Manager Adm'r, , (where legislature specifically used a term in certain places within a statute and excluded it in another place, court will not read the term into the section from which it was excluded).
Business Realty of Arizona, Inc. v. Maricopa County 870 P.2d 1125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Business Realty of Arizona, Inc. v. Maricopa County 870 P.2d 1125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Bigelsen v. Arizona State Board of Medical Examiners 853 P.2d 1133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Bigelsen v. Arizona State Board of Medical Examiners 853 P.2d 1133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
(where 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).
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Superior Court 834 P.2d 832 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Superior Court 834 P.2d 832 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Safety Retirement Fund Manager Adm’r, , Fund Manager v. Tucson Police and Fire Pub.
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-8287 828 P.2d 1245 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-8287 828 P.2d 1245 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
(trial court’s decision upheld on review if correct *111 for any reason); University Mechanical Contractors of Arizona, , (same).
Wells Fargo Credit Corp. v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund 799 P.2d 908 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Wells Fargo Credit Corp. v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund 799 P.2d 908 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State Public Safety Retirement Fund Manager Adm’r
City of Flagstaff v. Mangum 793 P.2d 548 Ariz. 1990
City of Flagstaff v. Mangum 793 P.2d 548 Ariz. 1990