Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Medina v. Arizona Department of Transportation, 916 P.2d 1130.

33 citing documents.

Greg Mills v. Abtr Ariz. 2022
Greg Mills v. Abtr Ariz. 2022
See Brush & Nib Studio, ¶ 34 (2019) (standing and ripeness); Medina v. Ariz. Dep’t of Transp., (jurisdiction).
Symbiont v. Bjm Feed Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Symbiont v. Bjm Feed Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
of Transp., and conclude state courts may hear state-law claims that implicate "run-of-the-mill question[s] of infringement," Inspired Dev.
Secure Ventures v. Hon. gerlach/johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Secure Ventures v. Hon. gerlach/johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
See, e.g., Medina v. Ariz. Dep’t. of Transp.
Parmeley v. Carr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Parmeley v. Carr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶30 “[P]rocedural defects are waived if not raised and preserved in the trial court.” Medina v. Ariz. Dep’t. of Transp.
Falcone Brothers & Associates, Inc. v. City of Tucson 381 P.3d 276 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Falcone Brothers & Associates, Inc. v. City of Tucson 381 P.3d 276 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
“According to the doctrine of exhaustion of remedies, ‘litigants may not seek judicial relief for a supposed or threatened injury until the prescribed administrative remedy has been exhausted.’” quoting Medina v. Ariz. Dep’t of Transp., 13 FALCONE BROS. v. CITY OF TUCSON Opinion of the Court (emphasis added).
holder/carter v. Arizona Board of Regents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
holder/carter v. Arizona Board of Regents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
The purpose of requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies is “to allow an administrative agency to perform functions within its special competence—to make a factual record, to apply its expertise, and to correct its own errors so as to moot judicial controversies.” Medina v. Ariz. Dep’t of Transp.
Glover v. Glover 289 P.3d 12 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Glover v. Glover 289 P.3d 12 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Medina v. Ariz. Dep’t of Transp.
STATE, EX REL. HORNE v. Campos 250 P.3d 201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
STATE, EX REL. HORNE v. Campos 250 P.3d 201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
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
Bailey-Null v. ValueOptions 209 P.3d 1059 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Bailey-Null v. ValueOptions 209 P.3d 1059 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
“The purpose of the doctrine is ‘to allow an administrative agency to perform functions within its special competence-to make a factual record, to apply its expertise, and to correct its own errors so as to moot judicial controversies.’” Moulton, 205 Ariz. at 511, ¶ 9 , 73 P.3d at 642 (quoting Medina v. Ariz. Dep’t of Transp., , ).
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
Medina v. Ariz. Dep’t of Transp., , ( , cert.
Health for Life Brands, Inc. v. Powley 57 P.3d 726 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Health for Life Brands, Inc. v. Powley 57 P.3d 726 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Samaritan Health System v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System Administration 11 P.3d 1072 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Samaritan Health System v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System Administration 11 P.3d 1072 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Medina v. Arizona Dep’t of Transp., -18 , -34 (App.1995).
Shaffer v. Arizona State Liquor Board 4 P.3d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Shaffer v. Arizona State Liquor Board 4 P.3d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
See, e.g., Medina v. Arizona Dep’t of Transp.
Kessen v. Stewart 990 P.2d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Kessen v. Stewart 990 P.2d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
See Phoenix Children’s Hosp., 195 Ariz. at 282 ¶ 18, 987 P.2d at 768 ¶ 18 (agency is proper place to build factual record); Medina v. Arizona Dep’t of Transp., , (making a factual record is one of primary purposes for exhaustion requirement); see also Countryman v. Industrial Comm’n, 10 Ariz.App.
Southwestern Paint & Varnish Co. v. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 976 P.2d 872 Ariz. 1999
Southwestern Paint & Varnish Co. v. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 951 P.2d 1232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Southwestern Paint & Varnish Co. v. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 951 P.2d 1232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
See Campbell; , Farmers Inv.