Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Flood Control Dist. v. Gaines, 43 P.3d 196.

23 citing documents.

Matthew Abraham ph.D. v. Arizona Board of Regents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
Matthew Abraham ph.D. v. Arizona Board of Regents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
v. Gaines, (“Clearly, the words ‘[a]ll actions’ in § 12-821 do not lend themselves to an 6 ABRAHAM v. ARIZ. BD.
Chandler v. Roosevelt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Chandler v. Roosevelt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
v. Gaines, ¶ 3, 254 ¶ 19 (App. 2002) (applying § 12-821 to an action against “a political subdivision responsible for developing and managing flood control projects to ensure public safety”).
JANE HM DOE v. THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OF THE DIOCESE OF PHOENIX Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
JANE HM DOE v. THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OF THE DIOCESE OF PHOENIX Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
State of Arizona v. Rodney Christopher Jones 440 P.3d 1139 Ariz. 2019
v. Gaines, ¶ 9 (App. 2002).
Viniegra v. Town of Parker Municipal Property Corp. 383 P.3d 665 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶18 -54, ¶¶ 14-17 (App. 2002), that § 12-821 was constitutional because it does not abrogate the fundamental right to sue, but merely 7 VINIEGRA v. TOWN OF PARKER Opinion of the Court provides a reasonable period of time within w
Tucson Estates Property Owners Association, Inc. v. McGovern, Sines 366 P.3d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Tucson Estates Property Owners Association, Inc. v. McGovern, Sines 366 P.3d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
v. Gaines, (within constitutional limits, legislature may alter common law “when its intent to do so is ‘clearly and plainly manifest[ed]’”), (alteration in Gaines).
McCcd v. Hon talamante/arvizu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
v. Gaines, ¶ 2, Ariz. R.P.
Anderson v. Prescott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
§ 12-821 as applied to state constitutional claims “because it regulates rather than abrogates the time within which an action must be filed against a public entity.” ¶ 18, (applying A.R.S.
Rogers v. Board of Regents of the University of Arizona 311 P.3d 1075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Rogers v. Board of Regents of the University of Arizona 311 P.3d 1075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
v. Gaines, see also Stulce v. Salt River Project Agric.
Cook v. Town of Pinetop-Lakeside 303 P.3d 67 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Cook v. Town of Pinetop-Lakeside 303 P.3d 67 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
v. Gaines, ¶ 6 , Canyon Del Rio Investors, ¶ 24
City of Phoenix v. Fields 193 P.3d 782 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
252, ¶9, , 200 (App. 2002) (“The legislature may, within constitutional limits, abrogate the common law when its intent to do so is clearly and plainly manifested.”) (internal quotations omitted).
Mayer Unified School and Gadsen Elementary School v. Winkleman, Az State Land Dept... Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Long v. City of Glendale 93 P.3d 519 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Long v. City of Glendale 93 P.3d 519 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
¶ 17 , (finding statutory limitations periods for bringing claims against governmental entities appropriately applied to actions for inverse condemnation).
Levinson v. Jarrett 88 P.3d 186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Levinson v. Jarrett 88 P.3d 186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
¶ 2 , (citations omitted).
McLoughlin Catalina v. Pima County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002