Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Gardiner v. Arizona Department of Economic Security, 623 P.2d 33.

28 citing documents.

Simms v. Simms 567 P.3d 92 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Simms v. Simms 567 P.3d 92 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Sec., ); see also Winters v. Ariz. Bd.
Jd Medical v. ades/roach Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Jd Medical v. ades/roach Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Scottsdale Healthcare, Inc. v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System Administration 75 P.3d 91 Ariz. 2003
Scottsdale Healthcare, Inc. v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System Administration 75 P.3d 91 Ariz. 2003
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Superior Court 953 P.2d 926 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Superior Court 953 P.2d 926 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Gardiner v. Arizona Dept. [sic] of Economic Security
Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System Administration v. Carondelet Health System 935 P.2d 844 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System Administration v. Carondelet Health System 935 P.2d 844 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Gardiner v. Arizona Dept, of Economic Security
Medina v. Arizona Department of Transportation 916 P.2d 1130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Medina v. Arizona Department of Transportation 916 P.2d 1130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Gardiner v. Arizona Dep’t of Economic Sec.
Weller v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 860 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Weller v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 860 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Id.; Gardiner v. Arizona Dep’t of Economic Sec.
Ross v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 829 P.2d 318 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Ross v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 829 P.2d 318 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
will not substitute its view *130 of the facts for that found by the administrative agency____” Gardiner v. Arizona Dep’t of Economic Sec., -06 , -36 (App.1981).
Sigmen v. Arizona Department of Real Estate 819 P.2d 969 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Sigmen v. Arizona Department of Real Estate 819 P.2d 969 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
SUBSTANTIAL MISREPRESENTATION Though we owe the Department’s conclusions of law no deference and may substitute our own, Gardiner v. Arizona Dep’t of Economic Security, , we find no flaw in the Department’s conclusions or disposition in this case.
Carley v. Arizona Board of Regents 737 P.2d 1099 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Carley v. Arizona Board of Regents 737 P.2d 1099 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Sanders v. Novick 729 P.2d 960 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Sanders v. Novick 729 P.2d 960 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Marlar v. State 666 P.2d 504 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Marlar v. State 666 P.2d 504 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
-606 , -36 (Ct.App.1981), Marlar contends that the superior court is free to substitute its judgment for the agency’s conclusion regarding the legal effects of the facts found by the administrative agency.
Moore v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 645 P.2d 1274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Moore v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 645 P.2d 1274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Richert v. Employment Security Commission, 20 Ariz.App.
Magma Copper Co. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 625 P.2d 935 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Magma Copper Co. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 625 P.2d 935 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981