Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Schwarz v. City of Glendale, 950 P.2d 167.

46 citing documents.

Unemployed Workers v. Ducey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Unemployed Workers v. Ducey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Acedo v. Mannion Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Acedo v. Mannion Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Ramsey v. Arizona Registrar of Contractors 384 P.3d 316 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Ramsey v. Arizona Registrar of Contractors 384 P.3d 316 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
v. Claassen, ¶ 8 (App. 2015) ().
City of Phoenix v. Glenayre Electronics, Inc. 375 P.3d 1189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
City of Phoenix v. Glenayre Electronics, Inc. 375 P.3d 1189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
v. Claassen, ¶ 8 (App. 2015) ().
Yamamoto v. Kercsmar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Yamamoto v. Kercsmar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
First Financial Bank, N.A. v. Claassen 357 P.3d 1216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
First Financial Bank, N.A. v. Claassen 357 P.3d 1216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Cemex Construction Materials South, LLC v. Falcone Brothers & Associates, Inc. 349 P.3d 210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
Cemex Construction Materials South, LLC v. Falcone Brothers & Associates, Inc. 349 P.3d 210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
Rogone v. Correia 335 P.3d 1122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Rogone v. Correia 335 P.3d 1122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Clark v. Anjackco Inc. 333 P.3d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Clark v. Anjackco Inc. 333 P.3d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Pawn 1st, LLC v. City of Phoenix 294 P.3d 147 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Pawn 1st, LLC v. City of Phoenix 294 P.3d 147 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
FL Receivables Trust 2002-A v. Arizona Mills, L.L.C. 281 P.3d 1028 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
FL Receivables Trust 2002-A v. Arizona Mills, L.L.C. 281 P.3d 1028 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Powers v. GUARANTY RV, INC. 278 P.3d 333 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Powers v. GUARANTY RV, INC. 278 P.3d 333 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Helvetica Servicing, Inc. v. Pasquan 277 P.3d 198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Helvetica Servicing, Inc. v. Pasquan 277 P.3d 198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
County of La Paz v. Yakima Compost Co. 233 P.3d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
County of La Paz v. Yakima Compost Co. 233 P.3d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
In Re Mh 2008-002659 226 P.3d 394 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
In Re Mh 2008-002659 226 P.3d 394 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
City of Phoenix v. Fields 193 P.3d 782 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
City of Phoenix v. Fields 193 P.3d 782 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Carbajal v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 190 P.3d 737 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Carbajal v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 190 P.3d 737 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
In Re Estate of Rodriguez 160 P.3d 679 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
In Re Estate of Rodriguez 160 P.3d 679 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Zajac v. City of Casa Grande 102 P.3d 297 Ariz. 2004
Zajac v. City of Casa Grande 102 P.3d 297 Ariz. 2004
Finding substantial compliance to be “all that is required” P.2d 167 (App. 1997), the trial court denied Zajac’s request for relief.1 1 The trial court upheld the ordinance on the theory of “substantial compliance” with the notice requirements.
Mejia v. Industrial Commission 39 P.3d 1135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Mejia v. Industrial Commission 39 P.3d 1135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
City of Tucson v. Whiteco Metrocom, Inc. 983 P.2d 759 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
City of Tucson v. Whiteco Metrocom, Inc. 983 P.2d 759 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Citibank v. Van Velzer 982 P.2d 833 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Citibank v. Van Velzer 982 P.2d 833 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
We review issues of statutory interpretation and application de novo, , and we will uphold the trial court’s decision if it is correct for any reason.
Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona v. Young 985 P.2d 507 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Farmers Ins. Co. of Arizona v. Young 985 P.2d 507 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998