Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Baca v. Arizona Department of Economic Security, 951 P.2d 1235.

37 citing documents.

Robles v. ades/tucson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Robles v. ades/tucson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Dow v. Az Nsac Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Dow v. Az Nsac Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Cobia v. Abon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Cobia v. Abon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Doe v. Abor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Doe v. Abor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Waltz Healing v. Adhs 433 P.3d 14 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Waltz Healing v. Adhs 433 P.3d 14 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Nieves v. opulent/ades Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Nieves v. opulent/ades Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Galaviz v. ades/azdes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Galaviz v. ades/azdes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Sec., -46 (App. 1997) (citation omitted).
Bsi v. Adot 399 P.3d 696 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Bsi v. Adot 399 P.3d 696 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Shudak v. Azcc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Shudak v. Azcc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
E. Vanguard Forex, Ltd. v. Arizona Corp. Comm’n, 6 SHUDAK v. AZCC Decision of the Court ¶ 35 (App. 2003); (noting an agency’s interpretation of a statute or regulation it implements ordinarily is given great weight).
Founding Fathers v. Asbcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Founding Fathers v. Asbcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Lewis v. Arizona State Personnel Board 379 P.3d 227 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Lewis v. Arizona State Personnel Board 379 P.3d 227 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Benevolent & Protective Order of Elks 2656 v. State Department of Liquor Licenses & Control 366 P.3d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Benevolent & Protective Order of Elks 2656 v. State Department of Liquor Licenses & Control 366 P.3d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Lipton v. Arizona Dental Board Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Lipton v. Arizona Dental Board Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Nyswaner v. Adc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Nyswaner v. Adc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Although ADC’s written policy only addresses extensions in cases involving the 120-day time limit, the policy does not preclude extensions in cases involving the 60-day time limit, and the court properly admitted testimony from the Warden that she interpreted the policy as allowing such extensions.7 See, e.g., Baca v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ Sec., –46, –38 (App. 1997) (agency’s interpretation of statutes and its regulations “entitled to great weight”).
Vong v. Aune 328 P.3d 1057 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Vong v. Aune 328 P.3d 1057 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Sec., -46, -38 (App. 1997), though its interpretations are not infallible, U.S. Parking Sys.
Bridgestone Retail Tire Operations v. Industrial Commission 258 P.3d 271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Bridgestone Retail Tire Operations v. Industrial Commission 258 P.3d 271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Sec., , (holding that judicial deference should be given to agencies charged with the responsibility of carrying out specific legislation); , (same).
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
Sec., -46 , -38 (App.1997).
Conference Resource Specialists of Arizona, Inc. v. Department of Economic Security Appeals Board 18 P.3d 108 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Conference Resource Specialists of Arizona, Inc. v. Department of Economic Security Appeals Board 18 P.3d 108 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
“the question whether an employing unit has succeeded to or acquired an organization, trade, *316 or business, or substantially all of the assets thereof, is primarily a factual one to be considered by the Appeals Board.” DES accordingly argues that we must affirm the Board’s decision if it is supported by any reasonable interpretation of the record, citing Baca v. Arizona Dep’t of Economic Sec., , and Warehouse Indem.
Southwestern Paint & Varnish Co. v. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 976 P.2d 872 Ariz. 1999