Cited by

59 citing documents.

Suppeland v. Nilz 623 P.2d 832 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Our Supreme Court has recognized, in the context of an appeal to superior court from the State Board of Tax Appeals, that “it is the responsibility of an appealing party to expeditiously prosecute the appeal to effect, and, admittedly, dismissal is a proper remedy for failure to so prosecute.”
McIntyre v. Mohave County 618 P.2d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
McIntyre v. Mohave County 618 P.2d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
However, “in arriving at the legislature’s intent, the effect and consequences of alternative constructions may be considered.”
State ex rel. Arizona Department of Revenue v. Golder 600 P.2d 1136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
State ex rel. Arizona Department of Revenue v. Golder 600 P.2d 1136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
The distinction between a complaint filed pursuant to § 42-123(B)(l) and a notice of appeal pursuant to § 42-123(BX6)
Pima County v. Cardi 600 P.2d 37 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Pima County v. Cardi 600 P.2d 37 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Department of Revenue v. Arizona Public Service Co. 580 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1978
Department of Revenue v. Arizona Public Service Co. 580 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1978