Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Lathrop v. Arizona Board of Chiropractic Examiners, 894 P.2d 715.

26 citing documents.

Dow v. Az Nsac Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Dow v. Az Nsac Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
of Chiropractic Examiners
Osborne v. Az Medical Board Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Osborne v. Az Medical Board Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
of Chiropractic Exam’rs, ¶ 21 (App. 2005) (“All decision makers, judges and administrative tribunals alike, are entitled to a presumption of ‘honesty and integrity.’” (citation omitted)).
Kahn v. Arizona Medical Board 300 P.3d 552 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Kahn v. Arizona Medical Board 300 P.3d 552 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
of Chiropractic Exam’rs, , Croft v. Ariz. State Bd.
Gaveck v. Arizona State Board of Podiatry Examiners 215 P.3d 1114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Gaveck v. Arizona State Board of Podiatry Examiners 215 P.3d 1114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Golob v. ARIZONA MEDICAL BD. OF STATE 176 P.3d 703 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Golob v. ARIZONA MEDICAL BD. OF STATE 176 P.3d 703 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Peeples, Inc. v. Arizona State Land Department Ex Rel. Anable 59 P.3d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Peeples, Inc. v. Arizona State Land Department Ex Rel. Anable 59 P.3d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Arizona Department of Corrections v. State of Arizona Personnel Board 48 P.3d 1208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Arizona Department of Corrections v. State of Arizona Personnel Board 48 P.3d 1208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Of Chiropractic Examiners, , (revocation of chiropractor’s li *601 cense was not excessive); , (revocation of real estate broker’s license was not excessive).
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
of Chiropractic Examiners, , (holding that clause “character likely to deceive or defraud the public” is a constitutionally adequate standard to limit the term “unprofessional conduct”); , (holding that clause “under circumstances likely to *318
Nutek Information Systems, Inc. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 977 P.2d 826 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Nutek Information Systems, Inc. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 977 P.2d 826 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Siler v. Arizona Department of Real Estate 972 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Siler v. Arizona Department of Real Estate 972 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
3 , and Schillerstrom, 180 Ariz. at 468 , 885 P.2d at 156 .
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
of Chiropractic Examiners, , reconciles conflicting evidence, DeGroot v. Arizona Racing Comm’n, , and weighs the sufficiency of the evidence presented.
Southwest Ambulance of Southeastern Arizona, Inc. v. Superior Court 928 P.2d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Southwest Ambulance of Southeastern Arizona, Inc. v. Superior Court 928 P.2d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Pima County v. Pima County Merit System Commission 923 P.2d 845 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Pima County v. Pima County Merit System Commission 923 P.2d 845 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Although a number of Arizona cases have applied the principle, see , Pima County Sheriffs Dept. v. Smith; , none of them appear to delineate any useful test for determining what is or is not “shocking to one’s sense of fairness.” However, in Pell v. Board of Education of Un