Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Smith v. Pima County Law Enforcement Council, 548 P.2d 1151.

26 citing documents.

Antonson v. Red Mtn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Antonson v. Red Mtn Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(equating a probationary term to a trial period precluding a right to a hearing under county law enforcement merit system rules); Kosulandich v. Survival Tech., Inc., 997 F.2d 431, 432 (8th Cir. 1993) (noting that probationary employees “were clearly at-will employees”); Moe v. E. Air
Yarbrough v. Montoya-Paez 147 P.3d 755 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Yarbrough v. Montoya-Paez 147 P.3d 755 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
(“[S]tatutory language which is clear and unambiguous requires no judicial interpretation.”).
State v. Sandoval 857 P.2d 395 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Sandoval 857 P.2d 395 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Borchers v. Arizona Board of Pardons & Paroles 851 P.2d 88 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Borchers v. Arizona Board of Pardons & Paroles 851 P.2d 88 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
The State relies on two cases for its position, both of which address the due process rights of employees, , Copper River Sch.
State v. Bouchier 767 P.2d 233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Bouchier 767 P.2d 233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Beck v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. 737 P.2d 402 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Beck v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. 737 P.2d 402 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Montoya v. Law Enforcement Merit System Council 713 P.2d 309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Montoya v. Law Enforcement Merit System Council 713 P.2d 309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Pickrell 667 P.2d 1304 Ariz. 1983
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Pickrell 667 P.2d 1304 Ariz. 1983
2524, 2527 , 69 L.Ed.2d 246 (1981)
Caldwell v. ARIZONA STATE BD. OF DENTAL EXAM. 670 P.2d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Caldwell v. ARIZONA STATE BD. OF DENTAL EXAM. 670 P.2d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Therefore, there is no room for judicial construction of this language, , and we reject the state's position that this language is merely directory and not a prerequisite to valid disciplinary actions by the Board.
Knoell Bros. Const. v. State, Dept. of Rev. 644 P.2d 905 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Knoell Bros. Const. v. State, Dept. of Rev. 644 P.2d 905 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
McLeod v. Chilton 643 P.2d 712 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
McLeod v. Chilton 643 P.2d 712 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Cato v. Collins, 539 F.2d 656 (8th Cir. 1976).
State v. Gunnison 618 P.2d 609 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
State v. Gunnison 618 P.2d 609 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Industrial Com'n v. Superior Court, Etc. 595 P.2d 166 Ariz. 1979
Industrial Com'n v. Superior Court, Etc. 595 P.2d 166 Ariz. 1979