Cited by

-50 (App. 3 ALLEN v. ADOT Decision of the Court 1992).

See Mills, 253 Ariz. at 422–23 ¶ 20; see also Moulton, 205 Ariz. at 513 ¶ 20 (“Only the courts have authority to take action that runs counter to the expressed will of the legislative body.” () (cleaned up)).

.”); Moulton, 205 Ariz. at 513 ¶ 20 (“We commit to administrative agencies the power to determine constitutional applicability, but we do not commit to administrative agencies the power to determine constitutionality of legislation.“ ()); (“Legal or constitutional questions concerning the validity of a zoning ordinance require judicial determination and are beyond the scope of an administrative body’s powers and authority.”).

ial adjudication”); Canyon del Rio Invs., ¶ 1 (App. 2011) (holding limitation periods for damage and declaratory judgment claims do not begin to run “until administrative remedies have been exhausted” and “an as-applied challenge to a zoning decision must be predicated on a final decision by the relevant government body”); (“None of the taxpayers exhausted available administrative remedies.

this court applied former A.R.S.

See Minor, 125 Ariz. 9 at 173, 608 P.2d at 312; Estate of Bohn v. Waddell, 174 Ariz. 239, 248

Comm’n, , (superi- or court lacks jurisdiction if party failed to follow statutory administrative procedures); , (same); -46 , -31 (App.1992) (same).

v. City of Phoenix, , ( , ).

See, ¶ 14 , -94 , -35 (App.1996); -50 , -35 (App. 1992).

Quality, (“We read § 12-902(B) as encompassing the traditional doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies.”); Coconino County v. Antco, Inc., (“Courts have characterized the exhaustion rule as a rule of judicial administration that is usually applied by virtue of express statutory mandate.”).

P.2d 324 (App. 1992) (statutory administrative process for tax refund claims and appeals mandatory despite use of word “may”); Gilbert v. Bd.

(statutory administrative process for tax refund claims and appeals mandatory despite use of word “may”); Gilbert v. Bd.

Medina v. Ariz. Dep’t of Transp., , ( , cert.

§ 42-1251(B) (1999)(failure to meet ADOR appeal deadline requires payment of all taxes, penalties and interest); see McNutt v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, , 265 ¶ 35, (“A party’s failure to resort to and exhaust administrative remedies deprives the [tax] court of jurisdiction to hear the party’s claim.”); -46 , -31 (App.1992)(“[I]f parties have statutory recourse to an administrative agency that has authority to grant appropriate remedies, they must scrupulously follow the statutory procedures.”), c

(if parties have statutory recourse to administrative agency with authority to grant appropriate remedies, they must scrupulously follow statutory procedures); , (taxpayer’s claims must be dismissed when taxpayer fails to ex

Comm’n, , -46 , -31 (App.1992), cert.

-46 , -31 (App.1992), cert.

Taxpayers, who are retired federal employees or their spouses or representatives, appeal from a , became final.

Under the exhaustion of remedies doctrine, litigants may not seek “judicial relief for a supposed or threatened injury until the prescribed administrative remedy has been exhausted.” , cert.

and supp. op., , both vacated on other grounds