Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State Board of Barber Examiners v. Walker, 192 P.2d 723.

60 citing documents.

State v. Az Regents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Az Regents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
(defining "conveyance" in statute).
State of Arizona v. Agustin Gonzalez Gongora 330 P.3d 368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Agustin Gonzalez Gongora 330 P.3d 368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Calpine Construction Finance Co. v. Arizona Depatment of Revenue 211 P.3d 1228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Calpine Construction Finance Co. v. Arizona Depatment of Revenue 211 P.3d 1228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Stein v. Sonus USA, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Stein v. Sonus USA, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
of Barber Exam’ (brackets in Lancaster).
Scheehle v. Justices of the Supreme Court 120 P.3d 1092 Ariz. 2005
Scheehle v. Justices of the Supreme Court 120 P.3d 1092 Ariz. 2005
of Barber Exam’ l67, ) 18 (emphasis added).
Birth Hope Adoption Agency, Inc. v. Doe 947 P.2d 859 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Birth Hope Adoption Agency, Inc. v. Doe 947 P.2d 859 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Kahn v. Thompson 916 P.2d 1124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
Kahn v. Thompson 916 P.2d 1124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
Airness & Accountability in Insurance Reform v. Greene 886 P.2d 1338 Ariz. 1994
FAIRNESS & ACCT. IN INS. REFORM v. Greene 886 P.2d 1338 Ariz. 1994
FAIRNESS & ACCT. IN INS. REFORM v. Greene 886 P.2d 1338 Ariz. 1994
Rotter v. Coconino County 805 P.2d 1019 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Rotter v. Coconino County 805 P.2d 1019 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
As phrased in case law, it has been held that mandamus may be used to compel performance of “a ministerial act which the law specially imposes as a duty resulting from an office.” , (emphasis deleted)
Kelley v. Arizona Department of Corrections 744 P.2d 3 Ariz. 1987
Kelley v. Arizona Department of Corrections 744 P.2d 3 Ariz. 1987
Mountain Shadows Resort Hotel v. Industrial Commission 710 P.2d 1066 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Mountain Shadows Resort Hotel v. Industrial Commission 710 P.2d 1066 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Lancaster v. Arizona Board of Regents 694 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Lancaster v. Arizona Board of Regents 694 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Arizona Public Service Co. v. Town of Paradise Valley 610 P.2d 449 Ariz. 1980
Arizona Public Service Co. v. Town of Paradise Valley 610 P.2d 449 Ariz. 1980
Arizona State Board of Accountancy v. Keebler 564 P.2d 928 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Arizona State Board of Accountancy v. Keebler 564 P.2d 928 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Arizona Press Club, Inc. v. Arizona Board of Tax Appeals 558 P.2d 697 Ariz. 1976
Arizona Press Club, Inc. v. Arizona Board of Tax Appeals 558 P.2d 697 Ariz. 1976
Yauch v. State, City of Tucson 514 P.2d 709 Ariz. 1973
Yauch v. State, City of Tucson 514 P.2d 709 Ariz. 1973
Del Rio Land, Inc. v. Haumont 501 P.2d 1189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Burnkrant v. Saggau 470 P.2d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Burnkrant v. Saggau 470 P.2d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Arizona State Tax Commission v. First Bank Building Corp. 429 P.2d 481 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Arizona State Tax Commission v. First Bank Building Corp. 429 P.2d 481 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
In addition the Court will apply the rules of statutory construction of expressio unius est exclusio alterius and ejusdem generis, where applicable, , , respectively.” (Emphasis theirs.)
Phoenix Title & Trust Company v. Burns 395 P.2d 532 Ariz. 1964
Phoenix Title & Trust Company v. Burns 395 P.2d 532 Ariz. 1964
In addition the Court will apply the rules of statutory construction of expressio unius est exclusio alterius and ejusdem generis, where applicable, , , respectively.
Application of Trico Electric Cooperative, Inc. 377 P.2d 309 Ariz. 1962
Application of Trico Electric Cooperative, Inc. 377 P.2d 309 Ariz. 1962
Whitfield Transportation, , ; , ; , ; , .
State Tax Commission v. Wallapai Brick & Clay Products, Inc. 330 P.2d 988 Ariz. 1958
State Tax Commission v. Wallapai Brick & Clay Products, Inc. 330 P.2d 988 Ariz. 1958
Pintek v. Superior Court 327 P.2d 292 Ariz. 1958
Pintek v. Superior Court 327 P.2d 292 Ariz. 1958
State Board of Technical Registration v. Bauer 326 P.2d 358 Ariz. 1958
State Board of Technical Registration v. Bauer 326 P.2d 358 Ariz. 1958
It is this discretion, granted to the Board, , , relied on by appellee.
Carp v. Superior Court 325 P.2d 413 Ariz. 1958
Carp v. Superior Court 325 P.2d 413 Ariz. 1958
This court held, , , that an appeal does not of itself operate to stay the execution of a peremptory writ of mandamus.