Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Hamilton v. State, 925 P.2d 731.

39 citing documents.

Greg Mills v. Abtr Ariz. 2022
Greg Mills v. Abtr Ariz. 2022
See Moulton, 205 Ariz. at 511 ¶ 9 (“[I]f parties have statutory recourse to an administrative agency that has authority to grant appropriate remedies, they must scrupulously follow the statutory procedures.” ()).
Mills v. Abotr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Mills v. Abotr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Osorio v. Ross Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Osorio v. Ross Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
state/ador v. House Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
state/ador v. House Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 14 (App. 2003) (“[T]ax matters must be exhausted within [the Department] before being brought in superior court.”); (“A party’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies deprives the superior court of authority to hear the party’s claim.”).
Hintze v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Hintze v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
If applicable, the trial court lacks jurisdiction “until the administrative process has run its course.” (“[F]ailure to exhaust administrative remedies deprives the superior court of authority to hear the party's claim.”).
Stagecoach Trails MHC, L.L.C. v. City of Benson 278 P.3d 314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Stagecoach Trails MHC, L.L.C. v. City of Benson 278 P.3d 314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Comm’n, , (superi- or court lacks jurisdiction if party failed to follow statutory administrative procedures); , (same); -46 , -31 (App.1992) (same).
SEMPRE LTD. PARTNERSHIP v. Maricopa County 235 P.3d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
SEMPRE LTD. PARTNERSHIP v. Maricopa County 235 P.3d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
See, ¶ 14 , -94 , -35 (App.1996); -50 , -35 (App. 1992).
Bailey-Null v. ValueOptions 209 P.3d 1059 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Bailey-Null v. ValueOptions 209 P.3d 1059 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
(quoting Hamilton v. *68 State, , ).
Moulton v. Napolitano 73 P.3d 637 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Moulton v. Napolitano 73 P.3d 637 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Raby 65 P.3d 458 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Raby 65 P.3d 458 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
-95 , -36 (App.1996) (holding that ADOR’s definition of “adjusted gross income” implicit in ADOR Form 140 PTC sufficiently fulfilled ADOR’s statutory duty to define that term).
Montero v. Foreman 64 P.3d 206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Montero v. Foreman 64 P.3d 206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
(-84 , -94 (1987)) (although moot, "we nevertheless address the merits of the ...
London v. Broderick 63 P.3d 303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
London v. Broderick 63 P.3d 303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
(Although issue on appeal is moot, we nevertheless address the merits of the taxpayers’ claims because the public interest will be served.).
Southwest Soil Remediation, Inc. v. City of Tucson 36 P.3d 1208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Southwest Soil Remediation, Inc. v. City of Tucson 36 P.3d 1208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Original Apartment Movers.
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Dougherty 29 P.3d 862 Ariz. 2001
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Dougherty 29 P.3d 862 Ariz. 2001
§ 42-124 (1998); 10 -94 , -35 (App.1996).
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Dougherty 6 P.3d 306 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Dougherty 6 P.3d 306 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
(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 exhaust administrative remedies).
Davis v. Arizona Department of Revenue 4 P.3d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Davis v. Arizona Department of Revenue 4 P.3d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
See Ariz. Re Stat. Ann. (“A.R.S.”) § 43-1001(2) (1998)
Walters v. Maricopa County 990 P.2d 677 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Walters v. Maricopa County 990 P.2d 677 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
-94 , -35 (App.1996); Farmers Inv.
Southwestern Paint & Varnish Co. v. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 976 P.2d 872 Ariz. 1999
Robert J. v. Department of Revenue 995 P.2d 691 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Robert J. v. Department of Revenue 995 P.2d 691 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Estate of Bohn v. Waddell, 174 Ariz. at 245-46 , 848 P.2d at 330-31 .
STATE EX REL. ARIZ. DEPT. OF REV. v. Short 965 P.2d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
STATE EX REL. ARIZ. DEPT. OF REV. v. Short 965 P.2d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Presumption that administrative interpretation is correct ¶ 13 , this court applied a rule of construction that, in the absence of contrary legislative intent, acknowledges the presumption that an administrative interpretation is correct.