Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite United States v. Super. Ct. in & for Maricopa Cty., 697 P.2d 658.

141 citing documents.

Ethridge v. Arizona State Board of Nursing 796 P.2d 899 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
State v. Prentiss 786 P.2d 932 Ariz. 1989
State v. Prentiss 786 P.2d 932 Ariz. 1989
Alhambra School District v. Superior Court 780 P.2d 401 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Henke v. Superior Court 775 P.2d 1160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Henke v. Superior Court 775 P.2d 1160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
United States v. *99 Superior Court
Aetna Casualty & Surety Co v. Superior Court 778 P.2d 1333 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Aetna Casualty & Surety Co v. Superior Court 778 P.2d 1333 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Arnold v. Arizona Department of Health Services 775 P.2d 521 Ariz. 1989
Arnold v. Arizona Department of Health Services 775 P.2d 521 Ariz. 1989
Fortune v. Superior Court 768 P.2d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Fortune v. Superior Court 768 P.2d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Winner Enterprises, Ltd. v. Superior Court 765 P.2d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Winner Enterprises, Ltd. v. Superior Court 765 P.2d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Londen v. Shumway 762 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1988
Londen v. Shumway 762 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1988
Scottsdale Publishing, Inc. v. Superior Court 764 P.2d 1131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Scottsdale Publishing, Inc. v. Superior Court 764 P.2d 1131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
State v. Flint 756 P.2d 324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
State v. Flint 756 P.2d 324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Cf. United States v. Superior Court In & For Maricopa County
Transamerica Financial Corp. v. Superior Court 746 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Transamerica Financial Corp. v. Superior Court 746 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Rouse v. Scottsdale Unified School District No. 48 752 P.2d 22 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Rouse v. Scottsdale Unified School District No. 48 752 P.2d 22 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
the court stated: “Murchison has not been understood to stand for the broad rule that the members of an administrative agency may not investigate the facts, initiate proceedings, and then make the necessary adjudications ____ The accepted rule is to the contrary____ (citations omitted)
Jacobson v. Superior Court 743 P.2d 410 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Jacobson v. Superior Court 743 P.2d 410 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Humana Hospital Desert Valley v. Superior Court 742 P.2d 1382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Humana Hospital Desert Valley v. Superior Court 742 P.2d 1382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
§ 12-120.21; rule 1(a), Rules of Procedure for Special Actions
Reed v. Reed 740 P.2d 963 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Reed v. Reed 740 P.2d 963 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Arizona Farmworkers Union v. Whitewing Ranch Management, Inc. 744 P.2d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Arizona Farmworkers Union v. Whitewing Ranch Management, Inc. 744 P.2d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
City of Tucson v. Fleischman 731 P.2d 634 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
City of Tucson v. Fleischman 731 P.2d 634 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
See Rule 1(a), Rules of Procedure for Special Actions, 17A A.R.S.
Smith Plumbing Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 720 P.2d 499 Ariz. 1986
Shea v. Superior Court of Maricopa County 723 P.2d 89 Ariz. 1986
Shea v. Superior Court of Maricopa County 723 P.2d 89 Ariz. 1986
Kuykendall v. Tim's Buick, Pontiac, GMC, & Toyota, Inc. 719 P.2d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Kuykendall v. Tim's Buick, Pontiac, GMC, & Toyota, Inc. 719 P.2d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
This constitutional provision is “a disclaimer of ‘only the state’s proprietary interest in Indian lands and not its governmental interest.’ ”
Gabel v. Tatum 707 P.2d 325 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Gabel v. Tatum 707 P.2d 325 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Obviously, such a task can be accomplished only in a single proceeding in which all substantial claimants are before the court so that all claims may be examined, priorities determined, and allocations made.” (Emphasis added)