Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Chevron Chemical Co. v. Superior Court, 641 P.2d 1275.

162 citing documents.

ruco/thaler v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
ruco/thaler v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
(accepting special action jurisdiction “because it appears from the pleadings that there are numerous litigants who are uncertain as to the law, and that a decision of this court is necessary to settle the matter and prevent further and unnecessary litigation”).
State of Arizona v. Evan McCarrick Jerald 548 P.3d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
State of Arizona v. Evan McCarrick Jerald 548 P.3d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
Arizona School Boards Assoc v. State Ariz. 2022
Arizona School Boards Assoc v. State Ariz. 2022
“In Chevron Chemical [], we approved a three-part test to determine whether this presumption of retroactivity has been overcome and a decision should be applied prospectively only.” Id.
Michael M. v. Katie A., E.O. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Michael M. v. Katie A., E.O. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
In actions involving purely civil matters, there is a “presumption that opinions by appellate courts of this state are retroactive as well as prospective.” -36, -80 (1982).
In re the Marriage of Friedman 397 P.3d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
Biggs v. Betlach 392 P.3d 499 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Biggs v. Betlach 392 P.3d 499 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Jackson White v. Dos Land Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Jackson White v. Dos Land Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
5 JACKSON WHITE v. DOS LAND Decision of the Court Ariz. 431, 435
State v. Okken 364 P.3d 485 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Okken 364 P.3d 485 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Co. v. Superior Court (Hale)
Arner v. Ryan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Arner v. Ryan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Niehaus v. Huppenthal 310 P.3d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Niehaus v. Huppenthal 310 P.3d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
(courts “will not declare an act of the legislature unconstitutional unless we are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the act is in conflict with the federal or state constitutions”); ¶ 8
Hamm v. Ryan 318 P.3d 868 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Hamm v. Ryan 318 P.3d 868 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Cave Creek Unified School District v. Ducey 295 P.3d 440 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Cave Creek Unified School District v. Ducey 295 P.3d 440 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
(noting the presump *353 tion that statutes are constitutional); ¶ 8 , (recognizing that courts presume the legislature intended acts with a constitutional purpose).
MARIO W. v. Kaipio 265 P.3d 389 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
MARIO W. v. Kaipio 265 P.3d 389 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Yavapai-Apache Nation v. Fabritz-Whitney 260 P.3d 299 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Yavapai-Apache Nation v. Fabritz-Whitney 260 P.3d 299 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Fred Nackard Land Co. v. City of Flagstaff 238 P.3d 149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Fred Nackard Land Co. v. City of Flagstaff 238 P.3d 149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Batty v. Glendale Union High School District No. 205 212 P.3d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Batty v. Glendale Union High School District No. 205 212 P.3d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Arizona Minority Coalition for Fair Redistricting v. Redistricting Com'n Arizona Independent 208 P.3d 676 Ariz. 2009
Arizona Minority Coalition for Fair Redistricting v. Redistricting Com'n Arizona Independent 208 P.3d 676 Ariz. 2009
and “when there is a reasonable, even though debatable, basis for the enactment of a statute, we will uphold the act unless it is clearly unconstitutional.” Murphy, 117 Ariz. at 61 , 570 P.2d at 1074 .
JILLY v. Rayes 209 P.3d 176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
JILLY v. Rayes 209 P.3d 176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Cain v. Horne 202 P.3d 1178 Ariz. 2009
Cain v. Horne 202 P.3d 1178 Ariz. 2009
(citing Ogden v. Blackedge, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 272, 277 (1804)).
Seisinger v. Siebel 195 P.3d 200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Seisinger v. Siebel 195 P.3d 200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Mayer Unified School and Gadsen Elementary School v. Winkleman, Az State Land Dept... Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Mayer Unified School and Gadsen Elementary School v. Winkleman, Az State Land Dept... Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
See Fain, 163 Ariz. at 596, 790 P.2d at 251, (approving and applying Chevron Oil retroactivity test); see also Reynoldsville Casket Co. v. Hyde, 514 U.S. 749, 753-54 (1995) (reliance on prior case law “insufficient to deny retroactive application of a new legal rule (that has been applied in the case that first announced it)”).
Yes on Prop 200 v. Napolitano 160 P.3d 1216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Yes on Prop 200 v. Napolitano 160 P.3d 1216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Ct., , (“Under the doctrine of separation of powers, the judiciary has the exclusive power to declare ‘existing law.’ ”).
Lincoln v. Holt 156 P.3d 438 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Lincoln v. Holt 156 P.3d 438 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Ct, , ¶ 15 , (“We will declare ...
State of Arizona v. Jay David Ramsey, Sr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
State of Arizona v. Jay David Ramsey, Sr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Komalestewa v. Industrial Commission 99 P.3d 26 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Komalestewa v. Industrial Commission 99 P.3d 26 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Riepe v. Riepe 91 P.3d 312 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004