Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite City of Tucson v. Mills, 559 P.2d 663.

34 citing documents.

Flanigan v. Aroc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Flanigan v. Aroc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶13 Remanding a case for further proceedings returns a case to the proper entity (in this case, the ROC) so that “it may take further action in accordance with applicable law.”
McMichael-gombar v. Phoenix Civil Service Ariz. 2023
McMichael-gombar v. Phoenix Civil Service Ariz. 2023
DISCUSSION ¶8 We will affirm the Board’s decision unless it is “arbitrary, capricious or involved an abuse of discretion.” ().
Gomez Pools v. Arizona Registrar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Gomez Pools v. Arizona Registrar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
(“Where the administrative body has made invalid or inadequate findings .
McMichael-gombar v. Phoenix Civil Service Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
McMichael-gombar v. Phoenix Civil Service Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶10 The critical issue is whether the Board’s action was “illegal in that it was arbitrary, capricious or involved an abuse of discretion.” ().
Welz v. Lake Havasu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Welz v. Lake Havasu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶13 In such a situation, the trial court is limited in its review to deciding “whether the administrative action was illegal in that it was arbitrary, capricious or involved an abuse of discretion.” Ariz. R. Spec.
STANT v. CITY OF MARICOPA EMPLOYEE MERIT BOARD 319 P.3d 1002 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
STANT v. CITY OF MARICOPA EMPLOYEE MERIT BOARD 319 P.3d 1002 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Actions 3(c); see Hamilton, 185 Ariz. at 427-28, 916 P.2d at 1143- 44; Justice, 116 Ariz. at 67, 567 P.2d at 1196
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
Woerth v. City of Flagstaff 808 P.2d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Woerth v. City of Flagstaff 808 P.2d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
(use of writ of certiorari to obtain review of city civil service board decision).
Knapp v. Miller 799 P.2d 868 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Knapp v. Miller 799 P.2d 868 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Williams v. Pima County 791 P.2d 1053 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Williams v. Pima County 791 P.2d 1053 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Zavala v. Arizona State Personnel Board 766 P.2d 608 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Explained Zavala v. Arizona State Personnel Board 766 P.2d 608 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
In a later decision arising from the same case, , we clarified that our remand was not merely a mandate to perform the ministerial act of reinstatement: A remand for further proceedings means that the case is returned to the administrative agency so that it may take further action in accordance with the applicable law____ Such a remand does not
Kuznicki v. Arizona Department of Transportation 732 P.2d 1119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Kuznicki v. Arizona Department of Transportation 732 P.2d 1119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Ontiveros v. Arizona Department of Transportation 729 P.2d 346 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Ontiveros v. Arizona Department of Transportation 729 P.2d 346 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Caldwell v. ARIZONA STATE BD. OF DENTAL EXAM. 670 P.2d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Caldwell v. ARIZONA STATE BD. OF DENTAL EXAM. 670 P.2d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Lewis v. Jamieson 660 P.2d 1249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Lewis v. Jamieson 660 P.2d 1249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Fox v. Town of Oro Valley 633 P.2d 428 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Fox v. Town of Oro Valley 633 P.2d 428 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Cohen v. State 588 P.2d 299 Ariz. 1978
Cohen v. State 588 P.2d 299 Ariz. 1978