Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Tanner Companies v. Arizona State Land Department, 688 P.2d 1075.

47 citing documents.

Mills v. Abotr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Mills v. Abotr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Tanner Cos. v. Ariz. State Land Dep’t, –88 (App. 1984) (“An action for declaratory relief is not appropriate to review an administrative decision when there exists a procedure to appeal from the administrative ruling.
County of La Paz v. Yakima Compost Co. 233 P.3d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Criticized County of La Paz v. Yakima Compost Co. 233 P.3d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
-23 (1938), , Tanner Cos. v. Ariz. State Land Dep’t
State of Arizona v. Rene A. Sanchez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State of Arizona v. Rene A. Sanchez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Cf. Tanner Cos. v. Ariz. State Land Dep’t, (“Had the legislature meant to limit the common mineral materials statute .
Samaritan Health System v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System Administration 11 P.3d 1072 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Samaritan Health System v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System Administration 11 P.3d 1072 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
section 41-1034 in the following situations: (1) there is no administrative grievance procedure in place to resolve the issue (therefore administrative remedies cannot be pursued, let alone exhausted), see Tanner Companies v. Arizona State Land Dep’t, , (declaratory judgment act is not proper means to seek review of agency decision if administrative appeal procedure exists); (2) the plaintiff can show that exhaustion of administrative remedies would prove futile, 4 , see Phoenix Children’s, 195
Bernal v. Loeks 997 P.2d 1192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Bernal v. Loeks 997 P.2d 1192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Cf. Tanner Cos. v. Arizona State Land Dep’t, , (basic tenet of statutory construction is that legislature presumed to express its meaning in as clear a manner as possible; had it “meant to limit the common mineral materials statute to materials commonly used for aggregate, ...
Williams v. Industrial Commission 977 P.2d 821 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Williams v. Industrial Commission 977 P.2d 821 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
See, e.g., Tanner Cos. v. Arizona State Land Dep’t
Estate of Bohn v. Scott 915 P.2d 1239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Estate of Bohn v. Scott 915 P.2d 1239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
ng the validity of an administrative tax regulation of general application, State Tax Comm’n v. Wallapai Brick & Clay Products, Inc., , we have made it clear that “the declaratory judgment procedure may not be used to preempt or prejudge issues that are committed for initial decision to an administrative body.” The Tanner Companies v. Arizona State Land Dep’t
Callender v. Transpacific Hotel Corp. 880 P.2d 1103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Callender v. Transpacific Hotel Corp. 880 P.2d 1103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Original Apartment Movers, Inc. v. Waddell 880 P.2d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Original Apartment Movers, Inc. v. Waddell 880 P.2d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Campbell, 120 Ariz. at 429-30 , 586 P.2d at 990-91 ; see also Tanner Cos. v. Arizona State Land Dep’t, , (declaratory judgment not appropriate for initial decisions committed to administrative body).
Thielking v. Kirschner 859 P.2d 777 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Thielking v. Kirschner 859 P.2d 777 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Tanner v. Arizona State Land Dep’t, , see also Arizona Bd.
Lewis v. N.J. Riebe Enterprises, Inc. 825 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1992
Lewis v. N.J. Riebe Enterprises, Inc. 825 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1992
Havasu Heights Ranch & Development Corp. v. Desert Valley Wood Products, Inc. 807 P.2d 1119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Havasu Heights Ranch & Development Corp. v. Desert Valley Wood Products, Inc. 807 P.2d 1119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
See Tanner Companies v. Arizona State Land Dep’t, -93 , -85 (App.1984).
Phoenix Control System, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of North America 796 P.2d 463 Ariz. 1990
Phoenix Control System, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of North America 796 P.2d 463 Ariz. 1990
-86 , -530 (App.1985); , (“modifying phrase ‘used as aggregate, ...
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 781 P.2d 605 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 781 P.2d 605 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Tanner Cos. v. Arizona State Land Dep’t
Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 773 P.2d 455 Ariz. 1989
Havasu Heights Ranch & Development Corp. v. State Land Department 764 P.2d 37 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Havasu Heights Ranch & Development Corp. v. State Land Department 764 P.2d 37 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Tanner Companies v. Arizona State Land Dept.
Schade v. Diethrich 760 P.2d 1050 Ariz. 1988
Schade v. Diethrich 760 P.2d 1050 Ariz. 1988
Gilbert v. Board of Medical Examiners 745 P.2d 617 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Gilbert v. Board of Medical Examiners 745 P.2d 617 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
See, e.g., Tanner Cos. v. Arizona State Land Dep’t, , State ex rel.
Alano Club 12, Inc. v. Hibbs 724 P.2d 47 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Alano Club 12, Inc. v. Hibbs 724 P.2d 47 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Appellants argue that appellees are not entitled to attorney’s
CORTARO WATER USERS'ASS'N v. Steiner 714 P.2d 807 Ariz. 1986
CORTARO WATER USERS'ASS'N v. Steiner 714 P.2d 807 Ariz. 1986
Cortaro Water Users' Ass'n v. Steiner 714 P.2d 807 Ariz. 1986
Cortaro Water Users' Ass'n v. Steiner 714 P.2d 807 Ariz. 1986
A court proceeding to review a state agency decision, pursuant to chapter 7, article 6 of this title, or any other statute *317 authorizing judicial review of agency decisions.” 1 Under § 12-348, attorneys’
Cortaro Water Users' Ass'n v. Steiner 714 P.2d 836 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
CORTARO WATER USERS'ASS'N v. Steiner 714 P.2d 836 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
CORTARO WATER USERS'ASS'N v. Steiner 714 P.2d 836 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Cortaro Water Users' Ass'n v. Steiner 714 P.2d 836 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Spurlock v. Santa Fe Pacific Railroad 694 P.2d 299 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Spurlock v. Santa Fe Pacific Railroad 694 P.2d 299 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984