Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Verdugo v. Industrial Commission, 492 P.2d 705.

28 citing documents.

Raymond L Malnar v. Elizabeth Joice 337 P.3d 43 Ariz. 2014
Raymond L Malnar v. Elizabeth Joice 337 P.3d 43 Ariz. 2014
Comm’n, (noting that “public officers are presumed to have done their duty”); Indus.
Beatie v. Beatie 333 P.3d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Beatie v. Beatie 333 P.3d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Comm’n of Ariz., (“This court has adhered to the general rule of law that public officers are presumed to have done their duty, and that acts of public officials are presumed to be correct and legal in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.” (internal citations omitted)); see also H
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. 181 P.3d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. 181 P.3d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Comm’n, , (public officials “presumed to have done their duty” and their acts “are presumed to be correct and legal in absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary”) (citing cases).
McDonald v. Thomas 40 P.3d 819 Ariz. 2002
McDonald v. Thomas 40 P.3d 819 Ariz. 2002
9 court of appeals, however, P.2d 705 (1972), in support of applying such a presumption in this case, stating that “no evidence in the record shows that the governor did not [act in a correct and legal manner] in this case.” McDonald, 198 Ariz. at 595 ¶ 22, 12 P.3d at 1100 ¶ 22.
McDonald v. Thomas 12 P.3d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
McDonald v. Thomas 12 P.3d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Comm’n, , , (acts of public officials are presumed to be correct and legal).
Arizona Corp. Commission v. Pacific Motor Trucking Co. 569 P.2d 1363 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Arizona Corp. Commission v. Pacific Motor Trucking Co. 569 P.2d 1363 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Consolidated Motors, , compare
Stemkowski v. Industrial Commission 556 P.2d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Stemkowski v. Industrial Commission 556 P.2d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Mills v. Industrial Commission 530 P.2d 385 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Mills v. Industrial Commission 530 P.2d 385 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Carranza v. Industrial Commission 529 P.2d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Carranza v. Industrial Commission 529 P.2d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
S (1972), the issue of the Award’s finality was not contested and the matter was considered as still being open.
Chavez v. Industrial Commission 520 P.2d 1178 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Chavez v. Industrial Commission 520 P.2d 1178 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
We cite our Verdugo opinion in this connection with the full realization that in an opinion by the same name, reported at , our opinion was vacated.
Benson v. Industrial Commission 505 P.2d 1387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Benson v. Industrial Commission 505 P.2d 1387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
the Verdugo Supreme-Court decision having vacated the Verdugoopinions of the Court of Appeals, supra,, which were relied on in the 26 July 1971 hearing officer decision; and Land v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, 108 Ariz, 278
Church v. Industrial Commission 505 P.2d 261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Church v. Industrial Commission 505 P.2d 261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
the respondent Industrial Commission of Arizona has confessed error in this case.
Land v. Industrial Commission 496 P.2d 139 Ariz. 1972
Followed Land v. Industrial Commission 496 P.2d 139 Ariz. 1972
Hume v. Industrial Commission 494 P.2d 37 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Hume v. Industrial Commission 494 P.2d 37 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972