Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Hawkins v. State, Dept. of Economic SEC., 900 P.2d 1236.

106 citing documents.

Compass v. Bennett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Compass v. Bennett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
This court reviews the entry of summary judgment de novo, to determine “whether any genuine issues of material fact exist,” Brookover v. Roberts Enter., Inc., ¶ 8 (App. 2007), and will affirm the entry of summary judgment if it is correct for any reason
Sandoval v. Tempe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Sandoval v. Tempe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“[W]e view the evidence in a light most favorable to the party against whom judgment was granted,” ¶ 10, but we will affirm the entry of summary judgment if it is correct for any reason, SANDOVAL v. TEMPE Decision of the Court 1236, 1239 (App. 1995).
Welz v. Lake Havasu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Welz v. Lake Havasu Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Sec., -04, -40 (App. 1995).
johnson/psychological v. Hon. o'connor/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Johnson v. O'Connor 327 P.3d 218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
johnson/psychological v. Hon. o'connor/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Winkleman v. Ariz. Navigable Stream Adjudication Comm’n, ¶ 33, ( ).
Johnson v. O'Connor 327 P.3d 218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Winkleman v. Ariz. Navigable Stream Adjudication Comm’n, , 244 ¶ 33, ( , ).
Town of Marana v. Pima County 281 P.3d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Town of Marana v. Pima County 281 P.3d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Grubb v. Do It Best Corporation 279 P.3d 626 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Grubb v. Do It Best Corporation 279 P.3d 626 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Cook v. Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc. 258 P.3d 149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Cook v. Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc. 258 P.3d 149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Arizona Navigable Stream Adjudication Commission 229 P.3d 242 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Arizona Navigable Stream Adjudication Commission 229 P.3d 242 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Mendoza v. McDonald's Corp. 213 P.3d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Mendoza v. McDonald's Corp. 213 P.3d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Sec., -04 , -40 (App.1995) (when administrative agency acts in a judicial capacity and resolves disputed issues of fact properly before it and the parties have had an adequate opportunity to litigate, preclusive doctrines of res judicata or collateral estop-pel may bar relitigation of those issues of
NEW SUN BUSINESS PARK, LLC v. Yuma County 209 P.3d 179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
NEW SUN BUSINESS PARK, LLC v. Yuma County 209 P.3d 179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Greenwood v. State 175 P.3d 687 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Greenwood v. State 175 P.3d 687 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
(holding that the appellate courts can consider and determine on appeal an issue not raised below if it could have been raised and determined at the trial court level).
City of Bisbee v. Arizona Water Company Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
City of Bisbee v. Arizona Water Company Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
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
P.2d 933 (1950) (res judicata applies both to claims actually raised and claims capable of having been raised); P.2d 1236 (App. 1995) (res judicata applies to certain administrative agency decisions).
Mullenaux v. Graham County 82 P.3d 362 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
(res judicata applies both to claims actually raised and claims capable of having been raised); , (res judicata applies to certain administrative agency decisions).
Smith v. Cigna HealthPlan 52 P.3d 205 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Smith v. Cigna HealthPlan 52 P.3d 205 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
¶21 The res judicata (claim preclusion) and collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) doctrines may “apply to decisions of administrative agencies acting in a quasi-judicial capacity.”
Romley v. Arpaio 40 P.3d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Romley v. Arpaio 40 P.3d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Sec., , (“Both doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel may apply to decisions of administrative agencies acting in a quasi-judicial capacity.”).
Taylor v. Graham County Chamber of Commerce 33 P.3d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Taylor v. Graham County Chamber of Commerce 33 P.3d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Molera 27 P.3d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Molera 27 P.3d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
JC Penney v. Lane 3 P.3d 1033 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
JC Penney v. Lane 3 P.3d 1033 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Drucker v. Greater Phoenix Transportation Co. 3 P.3d 961 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Drucker v. Greater Phoenix Transportation Co. 3 P.3d 961 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Young v. City of Scottsdale 970 P.2d 942 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Young v. City of Scottsdale 970 P.2d 942 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
L. Harvey Concrete, Inc. v. Agro Construction & Supply Co. 939 P.2d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
L. Harvey Concrete, Inc. v. Agro Construction & Supply Co. 939 P.2d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
McCandless v. United Southern Assurance Co. 953 P.2d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
McCandless v. United Southern Assurance Co. 953 P.2d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Mohave County v. James R. Brathovde Family Trust 928 P.2d 1247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Mohave County v. James R. Brathovde Family Trust 928 P.2d 1247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Hawkins v. Dep’t of Economic Security