Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite McClead v. Pima County, 849 P.2d 1378.

34 citing documents.

State v. Az Regents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Az Regents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
It argues such payments are equivalent to subsidies, for the proposition that subsidies qualify as payments in the context of A.R.S.
Pivotal Colorado II, LLC v. Arizona Public Safety Personnel Retirement System 322 P.3d 186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Pivotal Colorado II, LLC v. Arizona Public Safety Personnel Retirement System 322 P.3d 186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
PSPRS Is a State Agency ¶7 PSPRS “is the state agency responsible for administering the pensions of Arizona’s police and fire fighters.”
Hawk v. PC Village Ass'n 309 P.3d 918 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Hawk v. PC Village Ass'n 309 P.3d 918 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
697 , 74 L.Ed.2d 569 (1983)
Turken v. Gordon 207 P.3d 709 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Turken v. Gordon 207 P.3d 709 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
(holding that pension plans are not gifts, but part of the contemplated compensation for employee services); , (holding that a pension is not a gratuity or gift when the pension provision is part of a statute that contemplated the pension as part of the compensation for services rendered); -59 , -89 (App.1992) (holding that post-retirement benefit increases serves several public purposes, i.e. to protect the economic security of retired public servants and serve as a recruiting inducement for pr
Robson Ranch Quail Creek, LLC v. Pima County 161 P.3d 588 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Robson Ranch Quail Creek, LLC v. Pima County 161 P.3d 588 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Power & Light Co., 459 U.S. 400, 411, 103 S. Ct. 697, 704 (1983)
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Arizona Elec. Power Co-Op., Inc. 83 P.3d 573 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Arizona Elec. Power Co-Op., Inc. 83 P.3d 573 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
697 , 74 L.Ed.2d 569 (1983)
Flood Control Dist. v. Gaines 43 P.3d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Flood Control Dist. v. Gaines 43 P.3d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Martin v. Reinstein 987 P.2d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Martin v. Reinstein 987 P.2d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Safety, 190 Ariz. at 494, 949 P.2d at 987 ( , ).
Pavlik v. Chinle Unified School District No. 24 985 P.2d 633 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Pavlik v. Chinle Unified School District No. 24 985 P.2d 633 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
(one challenging the constitutionality of a statute bears the burden of proving it is unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt).
Kotterman v. Killian 972 P.2d 606 Ariz. 1999
Kotterman v. Killian 972 P.2d 606 Ariz. 1999
¶ 34 In McClead v. Pima County, our court of appeals observed that “state funds” are those “raised by the operation of some general law and therefore belonging to the state.”
Samaritan Health System v. Superior Court 981 P.2d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Samaritan Health System v. Superior Court 981 P.2d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Matter of Estate of Dobert 963 P.2d 327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Matter of Estate of Dobert 963 P.2d 327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Arizona Department of Public Safety v. Superior Court 949 P.2d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Arizona Department of Public Safety v. Superior Court 949 P.2d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Tucson Electric Power Co. v. Apache County 912 P.2d 9 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Tucson Electric Power Co. v. Apache County 912 P.2d 9 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Matter of Appeal in Maricopa County 887 P.2d 599 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Matter of Appeal in Maricopa County 887 P.2d 599 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Thurston v. Judges' Retirement Plan 876 P.2d 545 Ariz. 1994
Thurston v. Judges' Retirement Plan 876 P.2d 545 Ariz. 1994
Fund Manager v. City of Phoenix Police Dep’t
Thurston v. Judges' Retirement Plan 868 P.2d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Thurston v. Judges' Retirement Plan 868 P.2d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
359 n. 19, , 1389 n. 19 (App.1992).