Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Schade v. Arizona State Retirement System, 510 P.2d 42.

34 citing documents.

SVENDSEN v. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 323 P.3d 1179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
SVENDSEN v. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 323 P.3d 1179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Scottsdale Healthcare, Inc. v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System Administration 45 P.3d 688 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Scottsdale Healthcare, Inc. v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System Administration 45 P.3d 688 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Bucciarelli v. Arizona Department of Transportation 800 P.2d 54 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Bucciarelli v. Arizona Department of Transportation 800 P.2d 54 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Ethridge v. *70 Arizona State Board of Nursing
Zavala v. Arizona State Personnel Board 766 P.2d 608 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Zavala v. Arizona State Personnel Board 766 P.2d 608 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Croft v. Arizona State Board of Dental Examiners 755 P.2d 1191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Croft v. Arizona State Board of Dental Examiners 755 P.2d 1191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Ontiveros v. Arizona Department of Transportation 729 P.2d 346 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Ontiveros v. Arizona Department of Transportation 729 P.2d 346 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
The scope of review in the superior court was “limited to deciding whether the administrative action was illegal, arbitrary, capricious, or involved an abuse of discretion.”
Dellefield v. Arizona Boys Ranch, Inc. 732 P.2d 588 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Dellefield v. Arizona Boys Ranch, Inc. 732 P.2d 588 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
to support its contention that to effect a change of beneficiary Ho-man was required to strictly comply with the Retirement System’s procedure, i.e., return the form to the Retirement System office.
V.G.I. Harvesting Co. v. Arizona Agricultural Employment Relations Board 694 P.2d 328 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
V.G.I. Harvesting Co. v. Arizona Agricultural Employment Relations Board 694 P.2d 328 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
DeGroot v. Arizona Racing Commission 686 P.2d 1301 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
DeGroot v. Arizona Racing Commission 686 P.2d 1301 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Valley Vendors, Inc. v. Jamieson 630 P.2d 61 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Valley Vendors, Inc. v. Jamieson 630 P.2d 61 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Mendez v. Arizona State Bd. of Pharmacy 628 P.2d 972 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Mendez v. Arizona State Bd. of Pharmacy 628 P.2d 972 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Sundown Imports, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Transportation, Motor Vehicle Division
Wafer v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 621 P.2d 945 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Wafer v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 621 P.2d 945 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
J. W. Hancock Enterprises, Inc. v. Registrar of Contractors 617 P.2d 19 Ariz. 1980
J. W. Hancock Enterprises, Inc. v. Registrar of Contractors 617 P.2d 19 Ariz. 1980
National Advertising Co. v. Arizona Department of Transportation 617 P.2d 50 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
National Advertising Co. v. Arizona Department of Transportation 617 P.2d 50 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Thus the scope of the court’s review was “limited to deciding whether the administrative action was illegal, arbitrary, capricious, or involved an abuse of discretion.”
El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. State 599 P.2d 175 Ariz. 1979
El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. State 599 P.2d 175 Ariz. 1979
Arbitrariness provides a proper yardstick for judging the actions of an administrative agency when they involve an exercise of discretion, , but it has no application to cases dealing with ministerial duties or constitutional challenges.
Sundown Imports, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Transportation 565 P.2d 1289 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Sundown Imports, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Transportation 565 P.2d 1289 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
It is well established that, when an administrative decision is appealed to the superior court pursuant to the Administrative Review Act, “The scope of the Superior Court’s review is limited to deciding whether the administrative action was illegal, arbitrary, capricious, or involved an abuse of discretion.” , Welsh v. Arizona State Board of Accountancy, 14 Ariz.App.
Eshelman v. Blubaum 560 P.2d 1283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Eshelman v. Blubaum 560 P.2d 1283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by