Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Knape v. Brown, 342 P.2d 195.

55 citing documents.

Shea v. Maricopa Ariz. 2023
Shea v. Maricopa Ariz. 2023
& (“We said of [the Act] that the right of appeal ‘exists only by force of statute, and this right is limited by the terms of the statute.’” ()).
Starr v. Az Bof Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Starr v. Az Bof Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
In other words, an appeal is a privilege granted by the constitution or statute and in the absence of an express provision granting the right, none exists.”)
Legacy Foundation Action v. Citizens Clean Election Ariz. 2018
Legacy Foundation Action v. Citizens Clean Election Ariz. 2018
& (stating that a “right of appeal 7 LEGACY V. CITIZENS CLEAN ELECTIONS COMMISSION Opinion of the Court ‘exists only by force of statute, and this right is limited by the terms of the statute’” ()).
Richard Anderson v. Valley Union High School District 22 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Richard Anderson v. Valley Union High School District 22 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Furthermore, JRADA, which also is known as the Administrative Review Act,3 is ―not complementary to other statutory review proceedings.‖ Sarwark, 123 Ariz. at 4, 596 P.2d at 1176; -61
State v. Haney 219 P.3d 274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Haney 219 P.3d 274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
uage governs justification defenses generally, and is consistent with the settled rule of statutory construction that “[i]n so far as the provisions of a special statute are inconsistent with those of a general statute on the same subject, the special statute will control.” Desert Waters, Inc. v. Superior Court (City of Tucson), , ( , Whitfield Trans., , ).
Midtown Medical Group, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 206 P.3d 790 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Midtown Medical Group, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 206 P.3d 790 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
("[IJt is a well recognized rule of statutory construction that where special provisions of a statute deal with the same subject as a general statute, the special provision prevails.”); , (“[Wjhere ...
Guminski v. THE ARIZONA STATE VETERINARY MEDICAL EXAMINING BOARD 33 P.3d 514 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Guminski v. THE ARIZONA STATE VETERINARY MEDICAL EXAMINING BOARD 33 P.3d 514 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
an action for judicial review of an administrative decision is “in the nature of an appeal.” It has long been held that the right to appeal from any ruling including an administrative decision exists only by force of statute and is limited by the terms of the statute.
McLeod v. Chilton 643 P.2d 712 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
McLeod v. Chilton 643 P.2d 712 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
City of Show Low v. Owens 619 P.2d 1043 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
City of Show Low v. Owens 619 P.2d 1043 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Phillips v. Arizona Board of Regents 601 P.2d 596 Ariz. 1979
Phillips v. Arizona Board of Regents 601 P.2d 596 Ariz. 1979
Sarwark v. Thorneycroft 596 P.2d 1173 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Sarwark v. Thorneycroft 596 P.2d 1173 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
See County of Pima v. State Department of Revenue, Division of Property and Special Taxes
Arizona State Tax Commission v. Phelps Dodge Corp. 568 P.2d 1073 Ariz. 1977
Arizona State Tax Commission v. Phelps Dodge Corp. 568 P.2d 1073 Ariz. 1977
“ ‘In so far as the provisions of a special statute are inconsistent with those of a general statute on the same subject, the special statute will control, , Whitfield Trans.
Cty. of Pima v. State Dept. of Revenue, Etc. 560 P.2d 793 Ariz. 1977
Cty. of Pima v. State Dept. of Revenue, Etc. 560 P.2d 793 Ariz. 1977
Kearney v. Mid-Century Insurance Company 526 P.2d 169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Kearney v. Mid-Century Insurance Company 526 P.2d 169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
342 P.2d-195 (1959) ; , , Campbell v. Commonwealth Plan, Inc.
State Ex Rel. Larson v. Farley 471 P.2d 731 Ariz. 1970
State Ex Rel. Larson v. Farley 471 P.2d 731 Ariz. 1970
In so far as the provisions of a special statute are inconsistent with those of a general statute on the same subject, the special statute will control, , ; Whitfield Trans.
State Ex Rel. Ariz. St. Bd. of P. & P. v. Superior Court of Maricopa County 467 P.2d 917 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
State Ex Rel. Ariz. St. Bd. of P. & P. v. Superior Court of Maricopa County 467 P.2d 917 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
See the following cases as well on the general principles herein involved: , ; , , , ; Roer v. Superior Court, 4 Ariz.App.
State v. Marcus 450 P.2d 689 Ariz. 1969
State v. Marcus 450 P.2d 689 Ariz. 1969
Desert Waters, Inc. v. Superior Court, etc., , ; , .
State Land Department v. Painted Desert Park, Inc. 428 P.2d 424 Ariz. 1967
State Land Department v. Painted Desert Park, Inc. 428 P.2d 424 Ariz. 1967
Neil B. McGinnis Equipment Co. v. Riggs 422 P.2d 187 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Neil B. McGinnis Equipment Co. v. Riggs 422 P.2d 187 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Arizona Podiatry Ass'n v. Director of Insurance 422 P.2d 108 Ariz. 1966
Carson v. Gooding 419 P.2d 382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Carson v. Gooding 419 P.2d 382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Roer v. Superior Court 417 P.2d 559 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Roer v. Superior Court 417 P.2d 559 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
State Land Department v. Painted Desert Park, Inc. 416 P.2d 989 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
State Land Department v. Painted Desert Park, Inc. 416 P.2d 989 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Flynn v. Johnson 414 P.2d 757 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Flynn v. Johnson 414 P.2d 757 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
establishes that the requirement of a cost bond is a jurisdictional requirement.
Enloe v. Baker 383 P.2d 748 Ariz. 1963
Enloe v. Baker 383 P.2d 748 Ariz. 1963
ARIZONA COM'N OF AGRICULTURE & HORTICULTURE v. Jones 370 P.2d 665 Ariz. 1962