Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Higdon v. Evergreen International Airlines, Inc., 673 P.2d 907.

24 citing documents.

AROJOJOYE v. ALLEN Ariz. 2026
See, e.g., Higdon v. Evergreen Int’l Airlines, Inc., (concluding that “where findings are infirm because of an erroneous 12 AROJOJOYE V. ALLEN Opinion of the Court view of the law, a remand is the proper course unless the record permits only one resolution of the
Manzo v. Hayman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Manzo v. Hayman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
nduct of a sexual nature, (2) this conduct was unwelcome, and (3) the conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment.’” Craig v. M&O Agencies, Inc., 496 F.3d 1047, 1055 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Fuller v. City of Oakland, 47 F.3d 1522, 1527 (9th Cir. 1995)); see also Higdon v. Evergreen Int’l Airlines, Inc., n.3, n.3 (1983) (stating that federal Title VII case law is persuasive in the interpretation of the
Bunker's Glass Co. v. PILKINGTON, PLC 75 P.3d 99 Ariz. 2003
Michael R. Gray, M.D. v. Philip Morris Usa Ariz. 2003
Michael R. Gray, M.D. v. Philip Morris Usa Ariz. 2003
See, e.g., Higdon v. Evergreen Int’l Airlines, Inc., n.3, 166, n.3, 910 (1983) (applying a federal court interpretation of a Title VII exemption to construe a similar -35- provision in the Arizona Civil Rights Act and the Equal Pay Act)
St. Luke's v. State, Dept. of Law 884 P.2d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
St. Luke's v. State, Dept. of Law 884 P.2d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Accordingly, “unless the federal law exceeds the scope of the ACRA, we look to federal case law for guidance in this area.” Bogue, 179 Ariz. at 27 , 875 P.2d at 1332 ; Matos, 176 Ariz. at 128 , 859 P.2d at 751 ; see also Higdon v. Evergreen Infl Airlines, Inc., , 165-66 n. 3, , 909-10 n. 3 (1983).
Bogue v. Better-Bilt Aluminum Co. 875 P.2d 1327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Bogue v. Better-Bilt Aluminum Co. 875 P.2d 1327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Matos, 176 Ariz. at 128 , 859 P.2d at 751 ; see also Higdon v. Evergreen Int'l Airlines, Inc., , 165-66 n. 3, , 909-10 n. 3 (1983).
Matos v. City of Phoenix 859 P.2d 748 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Matos v. City of Phoenix 859 P.2d 748 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
See Higdon v. Evergreen International Airlines, Inc.
Timmons v. City of Tucson 830 P.2d 871 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Timmons v. City of Tucson 830 P.2d 871 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Higdon v. Evergreen International Airlines, Inc. 719 P.2d 1068 Ariz. 1986
Higdon v. Evergreen International Airlines, Inc. 719 P.2d 1068 Ariz. 1986
This is the second time this case has been before us. See Higdon v. Evergreen Int’l Airlines, Inc., , (Hig-don I).
Sees v. KTUC, INC. 714 P.2d 859 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Sees v. KTUC, INC. 714 P.2d 859 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Higdon v. Evergreen International Airlines, Inc.
State ex rel. Corbin v. Tucson Public Auction, Inc. 709 P.2d 570 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State ex rel. Corbin v. Tucson Public Auction, Inc. 709 P.2d 570 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Likewise, although we find error requiring reversal, the error does not require remand for the purpose of making additional findings as in Higdon v. Evergreen International Airlines, Inc.
Higdon v. Evergreen International Airlines, Inc. 719 P.2d 1077 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Higdon v. Evergreen International Airlines, Inc. 719 P.2d 1077 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Our first decision in this case, Higdon v. Evergreen International Airlines, Inc., , was vacated by the Arizona Supreme Court in Higdon v. Evergreen International Airlines, Inc.
Ariz. Civil Rights Div. v. Hughes Air Corp. 678 P.2d 494 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Ariz. Civil Rights Div. v. Hughes Air Corp. 678 P.2d 494 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Higdon v. Evergreen International Airlines, Inc., n. 3