Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Taylor v. Graham County Chamber of Commerce, 33 P.3d 518.

50 citing documents.

Worldwide Jet v. Christian Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Worldwide Jet v. Christian Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Peterson v. Surprise 418 P.3d 1020 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Peterson v. Surprise 418 P.3d 1020 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
See Bodett v. CoxCom, Inc., 366 F.3d 736, 746 (9th Cir. 2004) (employee waived claim for retaliation under what is now § 23- 1501(A)(3)(c) by failing to exhaust administrative remedies under Arizona Civil Rights Act); ¶ 12 (App. 2001) ("The EPA does not provide a back door method evidence of "outrageous conduct .
Monte v. Bertsch-Monte Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Monte v. Bertsch-Monte Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Millis 391 P.3d 1225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Millis 391 P.3d 1225 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
Chamber of Commerce, , (“[W]hen .., the legislature has clearly spoken on a matter within its domain, its word constitutes public policy on that subject and controls, assuming no constitutional impediments exist.”).
Sachs v. Sachs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Sachs v. Sachs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Chamber of Commerce, ¶ 29 (App. 2001) (citation omitted).
Harper v. State 388 P.3d 552 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Harper v. State 388 P.3d 552 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Chamber of Commerce, ¶ 11 (App. 2001).
In Re Marriage of Gibbs 258 P.3d 221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Gibbs v. Gibbs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
In Re Marriage of Gibbs 258 P.3d 221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Gibbs v. Gibbs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Jordan v. Rea 212 P.3d 919 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Jordan v. Rea 212 P.3d 919 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
¶ 29 , (“We review de novo ...
Cain v. Horne 183 P.3d 1269 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Cain v. Horne 183 P.3d 1269 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
We recognize that when “the legislature has clearly spoken on a matter within its domain, its word constitutes public policy on that subject and controls, assuming no constitutional impediments exist.”
State v. Aguilar 178 P.3d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State v. Aguilar 178 P.3d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
"But when, as here, the legislature has clearly spoken on a matter within its domain, its word constitutes public policy on that subject and controls, assuming no constitutional impediments exist.”
State ex rel. Thomas v. Contes 169 P.3d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State ex rel. Thomas v. Contes 169 P.3d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
¶ 28 , (stating courts “cannot second-guess or overturn what appear to be clear, deliberate legislative choices”).
Stein v. Sonus USA, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Stein v. Sonus USA, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Marriage of Cook v. Cook 104 P.3d 857 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Marriage of Cook v. Cook 104 P.3d 857 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
¶ 27 , (“[W]hen, as here, the legislature has clearly spoken on a matter within its domain, its word constitutes public policy on that subject and controls, assuming no constitutional impediments exist.”) (citing Ray v. Tucson Med.
Orfaly, George, Albrecht, Reid v. Tucson Symphony Society... Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Orfaly, George, Albrecht, Reid v. Tucson Symphony Society... Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Nelson 90 P.3d 206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Nelson 90 P.3d 206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
1 ¶ 12 When “the legislature has clearly spoken on a matter within its domain, its word constitutes public policy on that subject and controls, assuming no constitutional impediments exist.” ¶ 27
Bridgestone Firestone North America Tire v. A.P.S. Rent a Car & Leasing Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Bridgestone Firestone North America Tire v. A.P.S. Rent a Car & Leasing Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
(“[W]hen, as here, the legislature has clearly spoken on a matter within its domain, its word constitutes public policy on that subject and controls, assuming no constitutional impediments exist.”).
Mitchell v. Gamble, Jenson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Mitchell v. Gamble, Jenson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
and that body provides the appropriate forum to argue that public policy considerations favor abandoning [an established common law] rule.”); (“[W]hen, as here, the legislature has clearly spoken on a matter within its domain, its word constitutes public policy on that subject and controls, assuming no constitutional impediments exist.”).
Mullenaux v. Graham County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Mullenaux v. Graham County 82 P.3d 362 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Mullenaux v. Graham County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
(APEA “applies to all employers”).
Mullenaux v. Graham County 82 P.3d 362 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
(APEA “applies to all employers”).
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. 78 P.3d 1056 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. 78 P.3d 1056 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
184, ¶ 27, see also Ray v. Tucson Med.
American Casualty Co. v. D.L. Withers Construction, L.C. 64 P.3d 210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
American Casualty Co. v. D.L. Withers Construction, L.C. 64 P.3d 210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Moore v. Browning 50 P.3d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Moore v. Browning 50 P.3d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Roberson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 44 P.3d 164 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Roberson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 44 P.3d 164 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
¶ 45 , see also Reid, 790 F.2d at 460 .
Swanson v. Image Bank, Inc. 43 P.3d 174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Swanson v. Image Bank, Inc. 43 P.3d 174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002