Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Woerth v. City of Flagstaff, 808 P.2d 297.

90 citing documents.

McMurray v. Dream Catcher USA, Inc. 202 P.3d 536 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Neonatology Associates, Ltd. v. Phoenix Perinatal Associates Inc. 164 P.3d 691 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Neonatology Associates, Ltd. v. Phoenix Perinatal Associates Inc. 164 P.3d 691 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Pima County v. Pima County Law Enforcement Merit System Council 119 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2005
Pima County v. Pima County Law Enforcement Merit System Council 119 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2005
See, (stating that the Tucson Civil Service Commission requires an employer to bear the burden of - 10 - proving facts by a preponderance of the evidence); (stating that the Flagstaff Personnel Board requires that the employer establish facts by a preponderance of the evidence).
DeSilva v. Baker 96 P.3d 1084 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
DeSilva v. Baker 96 P.3d 1084 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Smith v. Arizona Long Term Care System 84 P.3d 482 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Smith v. Arizona Long Term Care System 84 P.3d 482 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Cranmer v. State 63 P.3d 1036 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Cranmer v. State 63 P.3d 1036 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
(“Generally, the party asserting a claim for relief has the burden of proving the facts essential to his [or her] claim.”); , see also Tucson Public Schools v. Green, 17 Ariz.App.
Rowland v. Great States Insurance 20 P.3d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Rowland v. Great States Insurance 20 P.3d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
(“To raise the issue of undue hardship ...
Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 12 P.3d 1208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 12 P.3d 1208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
La Paz County v. Upton 986 P.2d 252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
La Paz County v. Upton 986 P.2d 252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
(when proof of an assertion lies peculiarly within the knowledge of a party, the burden of producing evidence of that assertion is properly assigned to that party).
Harvest v. Craig 990 P.2d 1080 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Harvest v. Craig 990 P.2d 1080 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
(when proof of an assertion is peculiarly within the knowledge of a party, the burden of producing evidence of that assertion is properly assigned to that party).
Hull v. Albrecht 950 P.2d 1141 Ariz. 1997
Hart v. Seven Resorts Inc. 947 P.2d 846 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Hart v. Seven Resorts Inc. 947 P.2d 846 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
the superior court denied the defendant’s request for fees on the basis that an award would constitute a financial hardship on the plaintiff.
Pima County v. Pima County Merit System Commission 944 P.2d 508 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Pima County v. Pima County Merit System Commission 944 P.2d 508 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Because the Merit Commission acts as a quasi-judicial body, Woerth v. City of Flagstaff , it determines the credibility of witnesses, Lathrop v. Arizona Bd.
MacK v. McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Co. 880 P.2d 1173 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
MacK v. McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Co. 880 P.2d 1173 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
(“In Arizona, employment is presumed ‘at-will’ in the absence of a definite term of employment.”).
Nelson v. Phoenix Resort Corp. 888 P.2d 1375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Nelson v. Phoenix Resort Corp. 888 P.2d 1375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
417-18 n. 7, , 302-03 n. 7 (App.1990) (“Although Woerth refers to his claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing as a claim sounding in tort, Arizona has consistently refused to recognize a tort action for breach of the implied covenant in the employment contract context,” citing Wa
Smith v. American Express Travel Related Services Co. 876 P.2d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Smith v. American Express Travel Related Services Co. 876 P.2d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
More recently, , 417-18 n. 7, , 302-03 n. 7 (App.1990), citing Wagenseller , this court observed that Arizona has consistently refused to recognize a tort action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the employment contract context.
Guertin v. Pinal County 875 P.2d 843 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Guertin v. Pinal County 875 P.2d 843 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Tonto Creek Estates Homeowners Ass'n v. Arizona Corp. Commission 864 P.2d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Tonto Creek Estates Homeowners Ass'n v. Arizona Corp. Commission 864 P.2d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Fobes v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Arizona, Inc. 861 P.2d 692 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Fobes v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Arizona, Inc. 861 P.2d 692 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
for the proposition that a party asserting financial hardship has the burden of coming forward with prima facie evidence of such and that unsworn assertions of counsel do not meet that burden.
State v. Rebollosa 868 P.2d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Rebollosa 868 P.2d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Landi v. Arkules 835 P.2d 458 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Landi v. Arkules 835 P.2d 458 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
56; Woerth, v. City of Flagstaff, , Cecil Lawter Real Estate School, Inc. v. Town & Country Shopping Center Co., Ltd.