Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Board of Regents of University & State Colleges v. Frohmiller, 208 P.2d 833.

26 citing documents.

Lalliss v. National Liability Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Lalliss v. National Liability Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
& (explaining when a government actor must issue a warrant in payment of a debt).
State v. Az Regents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Az Regents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
the Arizona Supreme Court used the term "prosecute" to indicate the ability to both initiate and pursue litigation.
Redelsperger v. City of Avondale 87 P.3d 843 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Explained Redelsperger v. City of Avondale 87 P.3d 843 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
v. Frohmiller, , (Phelps, J., dissent ing).
Arizona Board of Regents v. State Department of Administration 728 P.2d 669 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Arizona Board of Regents v. State Department of Administration 728 P.2d 669 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
The applicability of that law to this particular controversy was not diluted by the supreme court’s
Campbell v. Harris 638 P.2d 1355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Campbell v. Harris 638 P.2d 1355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Industrial Develop. Auth. of Cty. of Pinal v. Nelson 509 P.2d 705 Ariz. 1973
Industrial Develop. Auth. of Cty. of Pinal v. Nelson 509 P.2d 705 Ariz. 1973
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, , ; , ; , ; , .
Anthony A. Bianco, Inc. v. Hess 339 P.2d 1038 Ariz. 1959
Anthony A. Bianco, Inc. v. Hess 339 P.2d 1038 Ariz. 1959
and Taylor v. McSwain, supra.
Schwartz v. Jordan 311 P.2d 845 Ariz. 1957
Schwartz v. Jordan 311 P.2d 845 Ariz. 1957
that the phrase “public purpose” was incapable of a fixed definition, and that “* * * What is ‘a public purpose’ depends in part upon the time (age), place) objects to be obtained, modus operandi, economics involved, and countless other attendant circumstancgg H* Í ‡ ^ We further observed that wh
Hertz Drive-Ur-Self System, Inc. v. Tucson Airport Authority 299 P.2d 1071 Ariz. 1956
Hertz Drive-Ur-Self System, Inc. v. Tucson Airport Authority 299 P.2d 1071 Ariz. 1956
We conclude that since the writ of mandamus is issued only to compel performance of an act which the law especially enjoins as a duty, concerning which a public officer has no discretion, , , , , and.
Hudson v. Kelly 263 P.2d 362 Ariz. 1953
Hudson v. Kelly 263 P.2d 362 Ariz. 1953
Board of Regents of University, , .
Peters v. Frye 223 P.2d 176 Ariz. 1950
Peters v. Frye 223 P.2d 176 Ariz. 1950
Yet, if the case presented is one where the decision has been in such flat opposition to the plain and uncontradicted facts as to force the conclusion that the decision was in bad faith, a review by the courts will always be open to the aggrieved party * * * >> , .
Montgomery v. Crawford 220 P.2d 853 Ariz. 1950
Montgomery v. Crawford 220 P.2d 853 Ariz. 1950

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by