Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Industrial Commission v. Superior Court in and for County of Pima, 423 P.2d 375.

55 citing documents.

Clouse Ex Rel. Clouse v. State 16 P.3d 757 Ariz. 2001
Clouse Ex Rel. Clouse v. State 16 P.3d 757 Ariz. 2001
(holding that administrative officials are immune from suit for activities performed while acting in a discretionary, quasi-judicial capacity).
Clouse v. State 11 P.3d 1012 Ariz. 2000
Clouse v. State 11 P.3d 1012 Ariz. 2000
(holding that administrative officials are immune from suit for activities performed while acting in a discretionary, quasi-judicial capacity).
Franks v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. 718 P.2d 193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
City of Tucson v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 619 P.2d 33 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
City of Tucson v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 619 P.2d 33 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
State v. Superior Court of Maricopa County 599 P.2d 777 Ariz. 1979
State v. Superior Court of Maricopa County 599 P.2d 777 Ariz. 1979
Such a motion admits the truth of the facts alleged, for purposes of the motion, , and merely contends that the plaintiffs are not entitled to relief under any legal theory.
Rios v. Industrial Commission 586 P.2d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Rios v. Industrial Commission 586 P.2d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
S. H. Kress & , , Sandoval v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District
Sandoval v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District 571 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Sandoval v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District 571 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Grimm v. Arizona Board of Pardons & Paroles 564 P.2d 1227 Ariz. 1977
Grimm v. Arizona Board of Pardons & Paroles 564 P.2d 1227 Ariz. 1977
E. g., , Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S. 308 , 95 S.Ct.
Hixon v. State Compensation Fund 565 P.2d 898 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Hixon v. State Compensation Fund 565 P.2d 898 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Nataros v. Superior Court of Maricopa County 557 P.2d 1055 Ariz. 1976
Nataros v. Superior Court of Maricopa County 557 P.2d 1055 Ariz. 1976
Board of Trustees of Tanque Verde School District 13 v. Superior Court 540 P.2d 1266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Board of Trustees of Tanque Verde School District 13 v. Superior Court 540 P.2d 1266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Since an erroneous denial of a motion to dismiss is appropriately reviewable by special action under the circumstances presented here, , we assume jurisdiction.
Moore v. Industrial Commission 538 P.2d 411 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Moore v. Industrial Commission 538 P.2d 411 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
In 1 Am.Jur.2d Administrative Law § 83 (1962), a ministerial duty is defined as “one in respect to which nothing is left to discretion.” Similarly, , a ministerial duty is one where “[T]he act is to be performed in a prescribed manner without the exercise of the officer’s judgment as to the propriety of the act.” Clearly the determination as to what amount of death benefits should be awarded petitioner was not a ministerial duty.
Engle Bros. v. SUPERIOR CT., IN & FOR CTY. OF PIMA 533 P.2d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Engle Bros. v. SUPERIOR CT., IN & FOR CTY. OF PIMA 533 P.2d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Sierra Madre Development, Inc. v. via Entrada Townhouses Ass'n 514 P.2d 503 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Sierra Madre Development, Inc. v. via Entrada Townhouses Ass'n 514 P.2d 503 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
State v. Boykin 502 P.2d 166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
State v. Boykin 502 P.2d 166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Denbo v. Badger 503 P.2d 384 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Denbo v. Badger 503 P.2d 384 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
“In reviewing a ruling on such motion, an appellate court likewise must accept the well-pleaded facts of the complaint as true.”
Ulan v. Lucas 500 P.2d 914 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Ulan v. Lucas 500 P.2d 914 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Molybdenum Corp. v. SUPERIOR CT., CTY. OF PIMA 498 P.2d 166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Molybdenum Corp. v. SUPERIOR CT., CTY. OF PIMA 498 P.2d 166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Davis v. Aandewiel 492 P.2d 758 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Davis v. Aandewiel 492 P.2d 758 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Industrial Commission v. Superior Court, Pima County
Isaacs v. Superior Court 487 P.2d 1044 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Isaacs v. Superior Court 487 P.2d 1044 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
E. g., , ; State Compensation Fund v. Superior Court, 11 Ariz.App.
Barragan v. Superior Court, Pima County 469 P.2d 92 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Barragan v. Superior Court, Pima County 469 P.2d 92 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
State Compensation Fund v. Superior Court 466 P.2d 802 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
State Compensation Fund v. Superior Court 466 P.2d 802 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Rule 3, Rules of Procedure for Special Actions, 17 A.R.S.
Lueck v. Superior Court in & for the County of Cochise 457 P.2d 348 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Lueck v. Superior Court in & for the County of Cochise 457 P.2d 348 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Rodgers v. Ray 457 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Rodgers v. Ray 457 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
review denied, March 21, 1967.
Massengill v. Yuma County 451 P.2d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Massengill v. Yuma County 451 P.2d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Industrial Commission v. Superior Court, etc.
Kalmanoff v. Weitz 444 P.2d 728 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968