Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Zeigler v. Kirschner, 781 P.2d 54.

35 citing documents.

Allison Bradford; Michael Carlson and Adrian Wurr v. City of Tucson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
Allison Bradford; Michael Carlson and Adrian Wurr v. City of Tucson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
4 BRADFORD v. CITY OF TUCSON Opinion of the Court ¶11 The trial court, -85 (App. 1989), concluded that § 12-820.01 does not provide immunity for declaratory and injunctive relief.
Colorado City v. Centennial Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Colorado City v. Centennial Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Mills v. Abotr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Mills v. Abotr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
specifically 6 MILLS, et al. v. ABOTR, et al. Decision of the Court acknowledged [plaintiff’]s statutory right to” file the complaint); 85–86 (App. 1989) (finding class action claims under 42 U.S.C.
Osorio v. Ross Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Osorio v. Ross Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
The exhaustion doctrine is not applied, however, when “invoking the available administrative procedures would be futile or useless.” –86 (App. 1989); see also Ariz. Ass’n ¶ 21 (App. 2009).
Boruch v. State ex rel. Halikowski 399 P.3d 686 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Boruch v. State ex rel. Halikowski 399 P.3d 686 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 29 , this court recognized that neither A.R.S.
Compassionate v. adhs/nelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Compassionate v. adhs/nelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Contrary to the Department’s assertions, these statutes apply only to suits “against public entities and public employees for money damages.”
ARIZONA ASSOCIATION OF PROVIDERS v. State 219 P.3d 216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
ARIZONA ASSOCIATION OF PROVIDERS v. State 219 P.3d 216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
-86 , -63 (App.1989) ("It is settled in Arizona that the exhaustion doctrine is not to be applied ...
Dowling v. Stapley 179 P.3d 960 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Dowling v. Stapley 179 P.3d 960 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Kromko v. Arizona Board of Regents 146 P.3d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Kromko v. Arizona Board of Regents 146 P.3d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
precludes any argument that a state agency is immune from declaratory or injunctive relief.
Baker v. Rolnick 110 P.3d 1284 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Baker v. Rolnick 110 P.3d 1284 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
(stating the “tax court’s subject matter jurisdiction to hear state-law tax claims and § 1983 tax claims is subject to the exhaustion of administrative remedies”); -83 , -60 (App.1989) (overturning dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies in § 1983 suit against state health care director because no exhaustion was required under § 1983); 8 ¶ 25 , (discussing s
Aegis of Arizona, L.L.C. v. Town of Marana 81 P.3d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Aegis of Arizona, L.L.C. v. Town of Marana 81 P.3d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
3108, 3119 , 87 L.Ed.2d 126, 142 (1985)
Moulton v. Napolitano 73 P.3d 637 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Moulton v. Napolitano 73 P.3d 637 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
v. State, -11 , -69 (App.1986)(alleged “violations of state and federal statutes and regulations, constitutional provisions” were “inextricably intertwined with the claims for nonpayment for medical and hospital services provided”)(citing Heckler); , (folIowing St.
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Dougherty 29 P.3d 862 Ariz. 2001
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Dougherty 29 P.3d 862 Ariz. 2001
“[I]t appears to be generally agreed that a class action cannot be maintained unless at least one member of the putative class has exhausted applicable administrative remedies.”
Southwestern Paint & Varnish Co. v. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 976 P.2d 872 Ariz. 1999
Kerr v. Waddell 916 P.2d 1173 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Distinguished Kerr v. Waddell 916 P.2d 1173 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
2302 , 101 L.Ed.2d 123 (1988), and that § 1983 claims are not conditioned on exhaustion of state administrative remedies
Wallace v. Shields 854 P.2d 1152 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Wallace v. Shields 854 P.2d 1152 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Estate of Bohn v. Waddell 848 P.2d 324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Estate of Bohn v. Waddell 848 P.2d 324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Cochise County v. Kirschner 830 P.2d 470 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Cochise County v. Kirschner 830 P.2d 470 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
as support for his contention that Cochise County was required to exhaust its administrative remedies.