Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Fisher v. Maricopa County Stadium District, 912 P.2d 1345.

30 citing documents.

Simmons v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Stadium Dist., –20 (App. 1995).
Nina Alley v. Pima County, Pima County Attorney's Office, Laura Conover Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2026
Stadium Dist., (public body “should be held strictly to its stated purpose”).
Walters v. D'Annibale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Walters v. D'Annibale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Puente v. Asl Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Puente v. Asl Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Purcell v. Williamson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Purcell v. Williamson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Cf., (court will decide merits of case if they affect a fee award; also, mootness is "solely a discretionary policy").
Ridley v. Ridley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Ridley v. Ridley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Stadium Dist., (reversing decision below where the superior court assigned burden of proof to wrong party).
East Valley v. Mahoney Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
East Valley v. Mahoney Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Stadium Dist., -23 (App. 1995) (citing A.R.S.
Abc v. Flood Control Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Abc v. Flood Control Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Lunney v. State 418 P.3d 943 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Lunney v. State 418 P.3d 943 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(“legal advice” encompasses advice given to a public body “regarding the legal ramifications of the facts and information given” and “the legality” of the proposed action) ().
Arpaio v. Maricopa County Board of Supervisors 238 P.3d 626 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Arpaio v. Maricopa County Board of Supervisors 238 P.3d 626 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Recognizing and declining to rule on moot issues is a “discretionary policy of judicial restraint.”
State v. Reinhardt 92 P.3d 901 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Reinhardt 92 P.3d 901 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
TANQUE VERDE UNIFIED SCHOOL v. Bernini 76 P.3d 874 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
TANQUE VERDE UNIFIED SCHOOL v. Bernini 76 P.3d 874 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Molera 27 P.3d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Molera 27 P.3d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Browne v. Bayless 25 P.3d 749 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Browne v. Bayless 25 P.3d 749 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Johnson v. Tempe Elementary School District No. 3 Governing Board 20 P.3d 1148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Johnson v. Tempe Elementary School District No. 3 Governing Board 20 P.3d 1148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
¶ 8 The enactment of Arizona’s open meeting law “was an effort to ensure that the public could attend and monitor the meeting’s of all public bodies.” -23 , -52 (App.1995) (citing A.R.S.
Robert J. v. Department of Revenue 995 P.2d 691 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Robert J. v. Department of Revenue 995 P.2d 691 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998