Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite TUCSON PUB. SCH., DIST. NO. 1 OF PIMA CO. v. Green, 495 P.2d 861.

57 citing documents.

Jacob E. Wideman v. Adoc and Arizona Board of Executive Clemency Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2026
Cobia v. Abon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Cobia v. Abon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Compassionate Care Dispensary, Inc. v. Ariz. Dep't of Health Servs. 418 P.3d 978 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Compassionate Care Dispensary, Inc. v. Ariz. Dep't of Health Servs. 418 P.3d 978 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
No. 1 v. Green , , 94, ).
Jm Homes v. Empire Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Jm Homes v. Empire Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Shah v. Az Brd Dental Exam Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Shah v. Az Brd Dental Exam Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
McCormick v. Aroc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
McCormick v. Aroc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Hosea v. City of Phoenix Fire Pension Board 229 P.3d 257 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Hosea v. City of Phoenix Fire Pension Board 229 P.3d 257 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
West Valley View, Inc. v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Office 165 P.3d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
West Valley View, Inc. v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Office 165 P.3d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
v. Green, , ); see also Bolm, 193 Ariz. at 41, ¶¶ 15-16 , 969 P.2d at 206 (reversing fees grant in “the absence of any controlling Arizona authority previously addressing” legal issue posed by records request).
Maricopa County Sheriff's Office v. Maricopa County Employee Merit System Commission 119 P.3d 1022 Ariz. 2005
Maricopa County Sheriff's Office v. Maricopa County Employee Merit System Commission 119 P.3d 1022 Ariz. 2005
No. 1 of Pima County v. Green, 17 Ariz. App. 91, 94, (“Green”).
Pinal County v. Pinal County Employee Merit System Commission, Serb 116 P.3d 624 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Pinal County v. Pinal County Employee Merit System Commission, Serb 116 P.3d 624 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Griffith Energy, L.L.C. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 108 P.3d 282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Griffith Energy, L.L.C. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 108 P.3d 282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Cranmer v. State 63 P.3d 1036 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Cranmer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
State of Arizona v. Cranmer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
App. 91, 93, (“ [T]he burden of proving an abuse of [a state agency’ s] discretion was that of the one claiming such abuse.” ).
Cranmer v. State 63 P.3d 1036 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
(“Generally, the party asserting a claim for relief has the burden of proving the facts essential to his [or her] claim.”); , , (“[T]he burden of proving an abuse of [a state agency’s] discretion was that of the one claiming such abuse.”).
Shaffer v. Arizona State Liquor Board 4 P.3d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Shaffer v. Arizona State Liquor Board 4 P.3d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Bolm v. Custodian of Records of Tucson Police Department 969 P.2d 200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Bolm v. Custodian of Records of Tucson Police Department 969 P.2d 200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Hill v. Safford Unified School District 952 P.2d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Hill v. Safford Unified School District 952 P.2d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
3 Although not determinative on the question of negligence, this court has previously held that student discipline is a matter entrusted to schools and their governing boards’ discretion, and judicial intervention is called for only to correct “a manifest abuse of *114 discretion.” Tucson Public Schools, District No. 1 , see also Kelly v. Martin, 16 Ariz.App.
Pima County v. Pima County Merit System Commission 944 P.2d 508 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Pima County v. Pima County Merit System Commission 944 P.2d 508 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Hamilton v. City of Mesa 916 P.2d 1136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Hamilton v. City of Mesa 916 P.2d 1136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Cox Arizona Publications, Inc. v. Collins 818 P.2d 174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Cox Arizona Publications, Inc. v. Collins 818 P.2d 174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Arizona Board of Regents v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 806 P.2d 348 Ariz. 1991
Arizona Board of Regents v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 806 P.2d 348 Ariz. 1991
Ethridge v. Arizona State Board of Nursing 796 P.2d 899 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Ethridge v. Arizona State Board of Nursing 796 P.2d 899 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
No. 1 v. Green, , this court stated: The terms “arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable conduct” so as to constitute a manifest abuse of discretion calling for judicial intervention means unreasoning action, without consideration and in disregard for facts and circumstances; where there is room for two opinions, t
Barrow v. Arizona Board of Regents 761 P.2d 145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Barrow v. Arizona Board of Regents 761 P.2d 145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
He also contends that the code is not applicable to any off-campus activity since the statute was enacted “to [gjuarantee the students, faculty and other staff and the public that tax-supported education facilities would remain accessible and useful at all times for educational and other authorized public purposes....” Tucson Public Schools, District No. 1
Mathis v. Liquor Board 707 P.2d 974 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Mathis v. Liquor Board 707 P.2d 974 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
quoting Tucson Public Schools, District No. 1
Marlar v. State 666 P.2d 504 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Marlar v. State 666 P.2d 504 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
ation and in disregard for facts and circumstances; where there is room for two opinions, the action is not arbitrary or capricious if exercised honestly and upon due consideration, even though it may be believed that an erroneous conclusion has been reached.’ , ( , ).
Evans v. STATE, EX REL. ARIZONA CORP. COM'N 643 P.2d 14 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Evans v. STATE, EX REL. ARIZONA CORP. COM'N 643 P.2d 14 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Tucson Public Schools, District No. 1
Fulton v. Dysart Unified School District No. 89 651 P.2d 369 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982