Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Peters v. Frye, 223 P.2d 176.
- Cook v. State 281 P.3d 1053 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
-
Cook v. State
281 P.3d 1053
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
§ 13-757(A) provides sufficient standards to guide the Department’s discretion and the “protocol has always been subject to judicial review.” The superior court granted their motion, finding no “unconstitutional delegation of authority.” , the superior court emphasized that “courts are always alert to grant a review where it is sufficiently shown that a subordinate agency has abused its discretion.” DISCUSSION 3 1.
- Griffith Energy, L.L.C. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 108 P.3d 282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
-
Griffith Energy, L.L.C. v. Arizona Department of Revenue
108 P.3d 282
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Sec., , (holding legislature “can give agencies discretion as to execution of the laws”) ( , ).
- Lewis v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 925 P.2d 751 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
- Lewis v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 925 P.2d 751 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
- La Paz County v. Yuma County 735 P.2d 772 Ariz. 1987
- La Paz County v. Yuma County 735 P.2d 772 Ariz. 1987
- Cooper v. Arizona Bd. of Pardons and Paroles 717 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1986
- Lake Havasu City v. Mohave County 675 P.2d 1371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
- Lake Havasu City v. Mohave County 675 P.2d 1371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
- Owens v. GLENARM LAND COMPANY, INC. 539 P.2d 544 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
- Owens v. GLENARM LAND COMPANY, INC. 539 P.2d 544 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
- State v. Arizona Mines Supply Co. 484 P.2d 619 Ariz. 1971
- State v. Arizona Mines Supply Co. 484 P.2d 619 Ariz. 1971
- State Ex Rel. Pickrell v. Downey 430 P.2d 122 Ariz. 1967
- State Ex Rel. Pickrell v. Downey 430 P.2d 122 Ariz. 1967
- Robinson v. Lintz 420 P.2d 923 Ariz. 1966
- Senner v. Bank of Douglas 354 P.2d 48 Ariz. 1960
-
Senner v. Bank of Douglas
354 P.2d 48
Ariz. 1960
See also Hertz Drive-Ur-Self System, , ; , ; , .
- 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
- 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
since a public officer’s discretion may not be controlled by the writ of mandamus if the public officer has not acted arbitrarily and in abuse of discretion, Brown v. City of Phoenix, supra, , , , , the trial court did not err in directing that plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed and the writ of mandamus quashed.
- Arizona State Highway Commission v. Superior Court 299 P.2d 783 Ariz. 1956
- Arizona State Highway Commission v. Superior Court 299 P.2d 783 Ariz. 1956
- Chesley v. Jones 299 P.2d 179 Ariz. 1956
- Chesley v. Jones 299 P.2d 179 Ariz. 1956
- Brown v. City of Phoenix 272 P.2d 358 Ariz. 1954
-
Brown v. City of Phoenix
272 P.2d 358
Ariz. 1954
* * *” While this court has not had occasion to pass upon this question directly in situations involving public bidding, , , bears it out in principle: “Finally we consider the plaintiffs’ right to a writ of mandate to control the action of the board.