Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Comeau v. Arizona State Board of Dental Examiners, 993 P.2d 1066.

80 citing documents.

Shah v. Az Brd Dental Exam Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Shah v. Az Brd Dental Exam Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
[P]anel would be conducting, the allegations against him, or the standard of care to be applied in the Panel’s assessment or in the Board’s decision regarding discipline.”6 P.2d 1066 (App. 1999), we find the case and its analysis controlling here, and hold that the investigative interview in this case satisfied the requirements of procedural due process.
O'Connor v. Arizona Medical Board Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
O'Connor v. Arizona Medical Board Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
of Dental Exam’rs, -07, ¶ 20, -71 (App. 1999) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Roberto F. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 301 P.3d 211 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Roberto F. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 301 P.3d 211 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Of Dental Exam’rs, ¶ 28 , (“Due process requires prior notice of the charges so that the accused has a meaningful opportunity for explanation and defense.”).
Baker v. Bradley 296 P.3d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Baker v. Bradley 296 P.3d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
of Dental Exam’rs, , describing it as follows: “(notice filed after court issued unsigned minute entry, but before clerk entered the judgment).” Smith, 212 Ariz. at 415, ¶37 , 132 P.3d at 1195 .
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
of Dental Exam’rs, -07, ¶ 20 , -71 (App.1999)).
Carlson v. Arizona State Personnel Board 153 P.3d 1055 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Carlson v. Arizona State Personnel Board 153 P.3d 1055 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
of Dental Exam’rs, ¶ 28 , (stating the due process rights of a medical licensee require “notice of the nature of the wrong charged and the particular instances of its perpetration” before sanctions can be imposed); A.R.S.
Bolser Enterprises, Inc. v. Arizona Registrar of Contractors 139 P.3d 1286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Bolser Enterprises, Inc. v. Arizona Registrar of Contractors 139 P.3d 1286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
of Dental Exam’rs, ¶ 18 , (recognizing property interest in professional license.)
Smith v. Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission 132 P.3d 1187 Ariz. 2006
Smith v. Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission 132 P.3d 1187 Ariz. 2006
of Dental Exam’rs, ¶ 16 , (notice filed after court issued unsigned minute entry, but before clerk entered the judgment), , (holding that notice of appeal filed while a motion for a new trial was pending in the trial court did not
Curtis v. Richardson 131 P.3d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Curtis v. Richardson 131 P.3d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
of Dental Exam’rs, -07, ¶ 20 , -71 (App.1999).
Emmett McLoughlin Realty, Inc. v. Pima County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Emmett McLoughlin Realty, Inc. v. Pima County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
of Dental Exam’rs, -71 (App. 1999)
Schwab v. Ames Const. 83 P.3d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Schwab v. Ames Const. 83 P.3d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Hanley v. Pearson 61 P.3d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Hanley v. Pearson 61 P.3d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Webb v. State Ex Rel. Arizona Bd. of Medical Examiners 48 P.3d 505 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Webb v. State Ex Rel. Arizona Bd. of Medical Examiners 48 P.3d 505 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Dahnad v. Buttrick 36 P.3d 742 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Dahnad v. Buttrick 36 P.3d 742 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Residential Utility Consumer Office v. Arizona Corp. Commission 20 P.3d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Residential Utility Consumer Office v. Arizona Corp. Commission 20 P.3d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
of Dental Exam’rs, ¶ 31 , ¶ 11 , (“It is sound judicial policy to avoid deciding a case on constitutional grounds if there are nonconstitutional grounds dispositive of the case.”).