Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Rhodes v. Clark, 373 P.2d 348.

39 citing documents.

Total Renal v. Hon moskowitz/brackman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Total Renal v. Hon moskowitz/brackman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
suing the writ.”); 8 TOTAL RENAL v. HON MOSKOWITZ/BRACKMAN Decision of the Court (App. 1984) (finding special-action relief was not warranted because a “remedy does not become inadequate merely because more time would transpire by pursuing a conventional action”) ().
Ponderosa v. Coconino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Ponderosa v. Coconino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(holding that a mandamus action may only be brought to compel a ministerial duty or, if the action was discretionary, the public official or board acted arbitrarily and abused his discretion); Collins, 56 Ariz. at 13, 104 P.2d at 179 (“[I]f it clearly appears that the officer has acted ar
Arizona Physicians IPA, Inc. v. Western Arizona Regional Medical Center 263 P.3d 661 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Arizona Physicians IPA, Inc. v. Western Arizona Regional Medical Center 263 P.3d 661 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
We recognize that compelling circumstances must exist for a party to an administrative proceeding to "by-pass the Act and avail himself of the extraordinary writs.”
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
v. Nelson, , , Walker, 67 Ariz. at 162 , 192 P.2d at 726-27 .
Neary v. Frantz 685 P.2d 1323 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Neary v. Frantz 685 P.2d 1323 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Book Cellar, Inc. v. City of Phoenix 678 P.2d 517 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Book Cellar, Inc. v. City of Phoenix 678 P.2d 517 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State Ex Rel. Hyder v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 624 P.2d 1264 Ariz. 1981
State Ex Rel. Hyder v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 624 P.2d 1264 Ariz. 1981
See, , Lesher, Extraordinary Writs in the Appellate Courts of Arizona, 7 Ariz.L.Rev.
Donaghey v. Attorney General 584 P.2d 557 Ariz. 1978
Donaghey v. Attorney General 584 P.2d 557 Ariz. 1978
-5 , : “A writ of mandamus ‘is an extraordinary and expeditious legal remedy which proceeds on the assumption that the applicant has an immediate and complete legal right to the thing demanded.’ Such a writ will lie only where two conditions are present: first the act, performance of which i
Rosenberg v. Arizona Board of Regents 578 P.2d 168 Ariz. 1978
Rosenberg v. Arizona Board of Regents 578 P.2d 168 Ariz. 1978
Board of County Supervisors v. Rio Rico Volunteer Fire District 580 P.2d 1215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Board of County Supervisors v. Rio Rico Volunteer Fire District 580 P.2d 1215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Jay v. Kreigh 514 P.2d 736 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Jay v. Kreigh 514 P.2d 736 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
“A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary and expeditious legal remedy which proceeds on the assumption that the applicant has an immediate and complete legal right to the thing demanded.”
Kaufman v. Pima Junior College 492 P.2d 32 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Kaufman v. Pima Junior College 492 P.2d 32 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
City of Phoenix Ex Rel. Backstein v. Superior Court 432 P.2d 471 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
City of Phoenix Ex Rel. Backstein v. Superior Court 432 P.2d 471 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Mandamus will not lie if there is a plain, speedy and adequate remedy at law
State Ex Rel. Green v. Superior Court in and for County of Pima 415 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
State Ex Rel. Green v. Superior Court in and for County of Pima 415 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Southwest Forest Industries, Inc. v. Sullivan 414 P.2d 151 Ariz. 1966
Southwest Forest Industries, Inc. v. Sullivan 414 P.2d 151 Ariz. 1966
Morrison v. Stanford 412 P.2d 708 Ariz. 1966
Morrison v. Stanford 412 P.2d 708 Ariz. 1966
*213 , , we stated the requirements for a writ of mandamus: “Such a writ will lie only where two conditions are present: first the act, performance of which is sought to be compelled, must be ‘a ministerial act which the law specially imposes as a duty resulting from an office,’ (footnote omitted) or if discre
State ex rel. Corbin v. Superior Court 412 P.2d 45 Ariz. 1966
State ex rel. Corbin v. Superior Court 412 P.2d 45 Ariz. 1966
§ 12-2021 provides that a writ of mandamus may issue from a superior court of the State of Arizona directed to an inferior tribunal, but the writ is not to issue where there exists a “plain, adequate and speedy remedy at law.” , ; , ; , ; , 226 P. 529 ; P. 12 ; , 162 P. 882 .
Greater Arizona Savings and Loan Ass'n v. Tang 400 P.2d 121 Ariz. 1965
Greater Arizona Savings and Loan Ass'n v. Tang 400 P.2d 121 Ariz. 1965
Westinghouse Electric Corporation v. Rhodes 397 P.2d 61 Ariz. 1964
Westinghouse Electric Corporation v. Rhodes 397 P.2d 61 Ariz. 1964
We accepted jurisdiction, being of the opinion there was no plain, speedy and adequate remedy at law within the meaning of our decision, , , and issued the alternative writ.