Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Dioguardi v. Superior Court, 909 P.2d 481.

28 citing documents.

Brady v. ades/esa Tax Unit Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Brady v. ades/esa Tax Unit Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Sec., 4 BRADY v. ADES/ESA TAX UNIT Opinion of the Court (App. 1986); (providing that an appellate court will strike down an agency’s rule that “would defeat the legislative purpose”).
Cleckner v. Adhs 433 P.3d 1200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Cleckner v. Adhs 433 P.3d 1200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Exam'rs), between November 2012 and June 2013 and analyzed data on patient outcomes, evaluated academic literature on midwifery, discussed draft rules and received comments from the public.
Cooke v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 302 P.3d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Cooke v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 302 P.3d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Exam’rs), , (explaining that we would strike down an agency’s rule “that would defeat the legislative purpose”).
In Re Pima County Mental Health No. MH-2010-0047 263 P.3d 643 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
In Re Pima County Mental Health No. MH-2010-0047 263 P.3d 643 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
So, too, is the question whether “an agency rule conforms to statutory requirements.”
Freelance Interpreting Services, Inc. v. State 133 P.3d 1163 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Freelance Interpreting Services, Inc. v. State 133 P.3d 1163 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Stapert v. Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners 108 P.3d 956 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Stapert v. Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners 108 P.3d 956 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
¶ 15 Dr. Stapert claims that this court’s opinion in Dioguardi v. Superior Court (Arizona Board of Medical Examiners), , also supports his contention that the Board has discretion to interpret time periods in the administrative rules.
Hurley Trucking Co. v. State ex rel. Arizona Department of Transportation 39 P.3d 527 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Hurley Trucking Co. v. State ex rel. Arizona Department of Transportation 39 P.3d 527 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
Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Leonardo 22 P.3d 513 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Leonardo 22 P.3d 513 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
(finding *80 that university could not exempt itself from rights to counsel and subpoena provisions provided claimants by Administrative Procedure Act); , (finding invalid procedural rule promulgated by Board of Medical Examiners on time for filing motions for rehearing because it conflicted with statutory mandate).
Arizona State Board of Regents Ex Rel. Arizona State University v. Arizona State Personnel Board 985 P.2d 1032 Ariz. 1999
Arizona State Board of Regents Ex Rel. Arizona State University v. Arizona State Personnel Board 985 P.2d 1032 Ariz. 1999
US West Communications v. Arizona Corp. Com'n 3 P.3d 936 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
US West Communications v. Arizona Corp. Com'n 3 P.3d 936 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Webb v. State 977 P.2d 839 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Webb v. State 977 P.2d 839 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Counterman 992 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Counterman 992 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
81-82 (App.1993)) (Rule 6(e) does not apply when time is computed from date of filing); Smith v. Arizona Dep’t of Corrections, , (same); Carr v. Veterans Admin., 522 F.2d 1355, 1357 (5th Cir. 1975) (Federal Rule 6(e) applies only to periods counted from date of service, not those counted from date of mailing); , 418 n. 2, , 485 n. 2 (App.1995) (Rule 6(e) does not apply to Rule 59, which is tied to entry — not service — of judgment); Korens v. Arizona Dep’t of Economic Sec., , 428 n. 4, , 583 n.
Rosen v. BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS OF STATE 912 P.2d 1368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Rosen v. BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS OF STATE 912 P.2d 1368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
we held that the ten-day time limit was an invalid departure from the requirement of A.R.S.