Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Norcor of America v. Southern Arizona International Livestock Ass'n, 596 P.2d 377.

40 citing documents.

State Bar v. Berry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State Bar v. Berry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
v. S. Ariz. Int’l Livestock Ass’n, -45 (App. 1979)); ¶ 26 (App. 2017) (“[A] party must timely present his legal theories to the trial court so as to give it an opportunity to rule properly.”) ().
Martineau v. Maricopa County 86 P.3d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Martineau v. Maricopa County 86 P.3d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
v. S. Ariz. Int’l Livestock Ass’n, , (§ 11-622) (stating that the purposes of Arizona county claim statutes are to provide an opportunity for settlement, to enable a prompt investigation, to protect a county against imposition, and to prevent unscrupulous public officials from depleting the public treasury).
Stulce v. SALT RIVER PROJECT AGRICULTURAL IMPROVEMENT AND POWER DISTRICT 3 P.3d 1007 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Stulce v. SALT RIVER PROJECT AGRICULTURAL IMPROVEMENT AND POWER DISTRICT 3 P.3d 1007 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Livestock Ass’n, , (general rule that questions not raised in the lower court will not be considered by the appellate court is applicable to constitutional questions).
State v. Five Thousand Five Hundred & 00/100 Dollars ($5,500.00) in U.S. Currency 817 P.2d 960 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Five Thousand Five Hundred & 00/100 Dollars ($5,500.00) in U.S. Currency 817 P.2d 960 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
(arguments unsupported by authority will not be considered on appeal); Norcor of America v. Southern Ariz. Int'l Livestock Ass’n, , (general rule that questions not raised in trial court will not be considered on appeal applies to constitutional issues).
State Ex Rel. Department of Health Services v. Cochise County 800 P.2d 578 Ariz. 1990
State Ex Rel. Department of Health Services v. Cochise County 800 P.2d 578 Ariz. 1990
163 Ariz. at 78 , 786 P.2d at 408 , citing Norcor v. Southern Arizona Int’l Livestock Ass’n
Murphy v. Town of Chino Valley 789 P.2d 1072 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Murphy v. Town of Chino Valley 789 P.2d 1072 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Norcor of America v. Southern Arizona Int’l Livestock Ass’n, -45 , -80 (App.1979).
State ex rel. Arizona Department of Health Services v. Cochise County 786 P.2d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State ex rel. Arizona Department of Health Services v. Cochise County 786 P.2d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Livestock, , the court identified several purposes of the county claims statutes: One purpose of these statutes is to prevent the revenue of a county from being consumed in litigation by providing an opportunity for the county to discharge or amicably adjust an obligation before it is faced wit
Lewis R. Pyle Memorial Hospital v. Gila County 775 P.2d 1146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Lewis R. Pyle Memorial Hospital v. Gila County 775 P.2d 1146 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Pima County by City of Tucson v. Maya Const. Co. 761 P.2d 1055 Ariz. 1988
Pima County by City of Tucson v. Maya Const. Co. 761 P.2d 1055 Ariz. 1988
Another purpose of the claims statute “is to prevent the revenue of a county from being consumed in litigation by providing an opportunity for the county to discharge or amicably adjust an obligation before it is faced with the *154 costs of a lawsuit.” Norcor of America v. Southern Ariz. Int’l. Livestock Ass’n.
Arizona Telco Federal Credit Union v. Arizona Department of Revenue 764 P.2d 20 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
ARIZ. TELCO FED. CR. U. v. Dept. of Rev. 764 P.2d 20 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
ARIZ. TELCO FED. CR. U. v. Dept. of Rev. 764 P.2d 20 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Arizona Telco Federal Credit Union v. Arizona Department of Revenue 764 P.2d 20 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Physical Therapy Associates, Inc. v. Pinal County 743 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Physical Therapy Associates, Inc. v. Pinal County 743 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Patton v. County of Mohave 741 P.2d 301 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Patton v. County of Mohave 741 P.2d 301 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Norcor of America v. Southern Arizona International Livestock As *171 sociation
Wilson v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 709 P.2d 895 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Wilson v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 709 P.2d 895 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
See also Norcor of America v. Southern Arizona International Livestock Ass’n, , Love v. Double “AA” Constructors, Inc.
Fleming v. Pima County 685 P.2d 1301 Ariz. 1984
Fleming v. Pima County 685 P.2d 1301 Ariz. 1984
Another purpose of the statute has been described as to prevent county revenue from being “consumed” in litigation over claims when the county might have been able to “amicably adjust” the claim before “faced with the costs of suit.”
TUSCON MEDICAL CENTER v. Apache County 682 P.2d 1143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
TUSCON MEDICAL CENTER v. Apache County 682 P.2d 1143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
we set forth what claims need not be presented to the county.
Fleming v. Pima County 685 P.2d 1319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Fleming v. Pima County 685 P.2d 1319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
It is true that tort claims do not fall within the statute, Norcor of America v. Southern Arizona International Livestock Ass’n
Pesqueira v. Pima County Assessor 650 P.2d 1237 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Pesqueira v. Pima County Assessor 650 P.2d 1237 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
(fulfilling statutory requirements for claims against the state is jurisdictional); , (same).
Yamamoto v. SANTA CRUZ CTY. BD. OF SUP'RS 606 P.2d 28 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Yamamoto v. SANTA CRUZ CTY. BD. OF SUP'RS 606 P.2d 28 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
§ 11-621, et seq., precluded subject matter jurisdiction
American Credit Bureau v. Pima County 596 P.2d 380 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
American Credit Bureau v. Pima County 596 P.2d 380 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
and the claims that need not be presented are enumerated.