Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Hunt v. Maricopa County Employees Merit System Commission, 619 P.2d 1036.

36 citing documents.

Moorish v. Social Security Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Moorish v. Social Security Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Comm’n, -62 (1980)); Ariz. Const. arts.
State Bar v. Papa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State Bar v. Papa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Home v. Rothschild 253 P.3d 1242 Ariz. 2011
Home v. Rothschild 253 P.3d 1242 Ariz. 2011
Because “the practice of law is a matter exclusively within the authority of the Judiciary,” -62, -39 (1980), “[l]awyers as officers of this court are responsible to it for professional misconduct,”
Sobol v. Alarcon 131 P.3d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Sobol v. Alarcon 131 P.3d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Comm’n, -62 , -39 (1980)).
Scheehle v. Justices of the Supreme Court 120 P.3d 1092 Ariz. 2005
Scheehle v. Justices of the Supreme Court 120 P.3d 1092 Ariz. 2005
Comm’n, ~62, ~39 (1980).3 I23 This Court fulfills the administrative responsibilities assigned to it under the constitution by, among other methods, promulgating rules.
Romley v. Arpaio 40 P.3d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Romley v. Arpaio 40 P.3d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Comm’n, -62 , -39 (1980) (Under Article III of the Arizona Constitution, “the practice of law is a matter exclusively within the authority of the Judiciary.
Encinas v. Mangum 54 P.3d 826 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Encinas v. Mangum 54 P.3d 826 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Comm’n, -62, -39 (1980) (the supreme court’s authority over the practice of law arises under article III of the Arizona Constitution).
Byers-Watts v. Parker 18 P.3d 1265 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Byers-Watts v. Parker 18 P.3d 1265 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Comm’n, -62 , -39 (1980) (Under article III of the Arizona Constitution, “the practice of law is a matter exclusively within the authority of the Judiciary.
In Re Creasy 12 P.3d 214 Ariz. 2000
In Re Creasy 12 P.3d 214 Ariz. 2000
Comm’n, -62 , -39 (1980) (citations omitted)).
In Re a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Smith 939 P.2d 422 Ariz. 1997
In Re a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Smith 939 P.2d 422 Ariz. 1997
Comm’n, -62 , -39 (1980) (citations omitted).
In Re Shannon 876 P.2d 548 Ariz. 1994
In Re Shannon 876 P.2d 548 Ariz. 1994
Comm’n, , (emphasis added); see, -12 , 248 P. 29, 30-31 (1926).
State v. Melendez 834 P.2d 154 Ariz. 1992
State v. Melendez 834 P.2d 154 Ariz. 1992
Landi v. Arkules 835 P.2d 458 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Landi v. Arkules 835 P.2d 458 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Hunt v. Maricopa County Employees Merit System Comm’n, -62 , -39 (1980).
State v. Melendez 812 P.2d 1093 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State v. Melendez 812 P.2d 1093 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
State v. Rivera 811 P.2d 354 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
State v. Rivera 811 P.2d 354 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Anamax Mining Co. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 711 P.2d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Anamax Mining Co. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 711 P.2d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State Ex Rel. Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Kennedy 693 P.2d 996 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State Ex Rel. Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Kennedy 693 P.2d 996 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Its motion was predicated on our supreme court’s , which limited lay representation before personnel boards to matters involving $1,000 or less.
In re an Anonymous Member of the State Bar 624 P.2d 1286 Ariz. 1981
In re an Anonymous Member of the State Bar 624 P.2d 1286 Ariz. 1981