Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Univar Corp. v. City of Phoenix, 594 P.2d 86.

38 citing documents.

Greg Mills v. Abtr Ariz. 2022
Greg Mills v. Abtr Ariz. 2022
(quoting Medina, 185 Ariz. at 417); (stating the “doctrine is firmly entrenched in Arizona for such sound reasons as judicial economy and reliance on the expertise of the administrative body for initial adjudication” (internal citation omitted)).
Mills v. Abotr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Distinguished Mills v. Abotr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
-24 (1979) (affirming dismissal of arguments made for the first time in superior court, because none of the “exceptional circumstances” excusing exhaustion of administrative remedies applied; exhaustion “is firmly entrenched in Arizona, for such sound reasons as judicial economy and reliance on the expertise of th
Chavez v. Roosevelt School Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Chavez v. Roosevelt School Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
[in cases] in which the agency’s expertise is unnecessary.”
SEMPRE LTD. PARTNERSHIP v. Maricopa County 235 P.3d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
SEMPRE LTD. PARTNERSHIP v. Maricopa County 235 P.3d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Baker v. Rolnick 110 P.3d 1284 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Baker v. Rolnick 110 P.3d 1284 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Moulton v. Napolitano 73 P.3d 637 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Moulton v. Napolitano 73 P.3d 637 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Dougherty 29 P.3d 862 Ariz. 2001
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Dougherty 29 P.3d 862 Ariz. 2001
(“This doctrine [of exhaustion] is firmly entrenched in Arizona....”).
Union Transportes De Nogales v. City of Nogales 985 P.2d 1025 Ariz. 1999
Union Transportes De Nogales v. City of Nogales 985 P.2d 1025 Ariz. 1999
Southwestern Paint & Varnish Co. v. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 976 P.2d 872 Ariz. 1999
Southwestern Paint & Varnish Co. v. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 976 P.2d 872 Ariz. 1999
Southwest Ambulance of Southeastern Arizona, Inc. v. Superior Court 928 P.2d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Southwest Ambulance of Southeastern Arizona, Inc. v. Superior Court 928 P.2d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Mountain View Pioneer Hosp.
Kerr v. Waddell 916 P.2d 1173 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Kerr v. Waddell 916 P.2d 1173 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Estate of Bohn v. Waddell 848 P.2d 324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Estate of Bohn v. Waddell 848 P.2d 324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Sun World Corp. v. City of Phoenix 800 P.2d 26 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Sun World Corp. v. City of Phoenix 800 P.2d 26 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
the tax court was therefore barred from considering it.
City of Prescott v. Town of Chino Valley 790 P.2d 263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
City of Prescott v. Town of Chino Valley 790 P.2d 263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Zeigler v. Kirschner 781 P.2d 54 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Zeigler v. Kirschner 781 P.2d 54 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
It is settled in Arizona that the exhaustion doctrine is not to be applied in cases in *86 which irreparable harm will be caused if the rule is followed, , or where invoking the available administrative procedures would be futile or useless.
Arizona Lotus Corp. v. City of Phoenix 663 P.2d 1013 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Arizona Lotus Corp. v. City of Phoenix 663 P.2d 1013 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
it was intended to apply only to activities “within the City.” However, several years prior to the times pertinent to this litigation, the ordinance was amended to make clear an intention on the City’s part to impose the tax on advertising revenues “whether derived from the residents of the City or not, or whether derived from within the City or from without.”
Farmers Investment Co. v. Arizona State Land Department 666 P.2d 469 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Farmers Investment Co. v. Arizona State Land Department 666 P.2d 469 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. City of Phoenix 645 P.2d 1251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. City of Phoenix 645 P.2d 1251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
the Arizona Supreme Court addressed the significance of this amendment: Because of these changes, we find that the present ordinance does indeed indicate, clearly and unambiguously, that the city intends the tax to be measured by proceeds derived from sales consummated outside its territorial lim
Valley Vendors Corp. v. City of Phoenix 616 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Valley Vendors Corp. v. City of Phoenix 616 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980