Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Allen v. Graham, 446 P.2d 240.

36 citing documents.

Truck v. Teixidor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Truck v. Teixidor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Co. of Ariz., (noting that appellate courts should not give advisory opinions or decide issues other than those required to dispose of appeal under consideration); ("Appellate review is circumscribed by the posture of the case in the lower court.").
Coombs v. Maricopa County Special Health Care District 387 P.3d 743 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Coombs v. Maricopa County Special Health Care District 387 P.3d 743 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State of Arizona v. Daughters-White Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Daughters-White Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
-11, -45 (1967) (court should not render “advisory opinions anticipative of 6 troubles which do not exist; may never exist; and the precise form of which, should they ever arise, [the court] cannot predict”); (“Appellate review is circumscribed by the posture of the case in the lower court.”).
Shelby School v. Arizona State Board of Education 962 P.2d 230 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Shelby School v. Arizona State Board of Education 962 P.2d 230 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Guibault v. Pima County 778 P.2d 1342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Guibault v. Pima County 778 P.2d 1342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Contempo-Tempe Mobile Home Owners Ass'n v. Steinert 696 P.2d 1376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Contempo-Tempe Mobile Home Owners Ass'n v. Steinert 696 P.2d 1376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
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
Appellant argues that since the obligation of a county to render medical care to indigents is purely a statutory duty, being unknown to the common law, , that under the holding in Maricopa County Municipal Water Conservation Disk No. 1 v. Warford, , the one-year statute of limitations for actions based on statute applies and exempts appellant from having to file a claim with the county.
Sheehan v. Pima County 660 P.2d 486 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Sheehan v. Pima County 660 P.2d 486 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Holland 586 P.2d 216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Holland 586 P.2d 216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Rosenberg v. Arizona Board of Regents 578 P.2d 168 Ariz. 1978
Rosenberg v. Arizona Board of Regents 578 P.2d 168 Ariz. 1978
Graham v. Shaffer 498 P.2d 571 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Graham v. Shaffer 498 P.2d 571 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Thermo-Kinetic Corporation v. Allen 493 P.2d 508 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Thermo-Kinetic Corporation v. Allen 493 P.2d 508 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
State Ex Rel. Ariz. St. Bd. of P. & P. v. Superior Court of Maricopa County 467 P.2d 917 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
State Ex Rel. Ariz. St. Bd. of P. & P. v. Superior Court of Maricopa County 467 P.2d 917 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Graham v. Allen 463 P.2d 102 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Graham v. Allen 463 P.2d 102 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Kirkpatrick v. Industrial Commission 460 P.2d 670 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Kirkpatrick v. Industrial Commission 460 P.2d 670 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Moseley v. Lily Ice Cream, supra
Jones v. Lopez Plascencia 458 P.2d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Jones v. Lopez Plascencia 458 P.2d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
we held, giving effect to § 12-902, subsec.
Quimby v. School District No. 21 of Pinal County 455 P.2d 1019 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Quimby v. School District No. 21 of Pinal County 455 P.2d 1019 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Allen *73 v. Graham, , State v Superior Court in and for County of Pima, 2 Ariz.App.
Camerena v. Department of Public Welfare 449 P.2d 957 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Camerena v. Department of Public Welfare 449 P.2d 957 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Chapter 85 is fatally defective as a plain denial of due process of law.” , , decided by this Court on 23 October, 1968.