Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Yeazell v. Copins, 402 P.2d 541.

116 citing documents.

Thurston v. Judges' Retirement Plan 876 P.2d 545 Ariz. 1994
Thurston v. Judges' Retirement Plan 876 P.2d 545 Ariz. 1994
B. Judge Thurston’s Right The court of appeals, , held that Judge Thurston’s retirement benefits, of which survivor benefits “are simply one facet,” were governed and fixed by his employment contract and, as part of his contract, “were vested prior to the 1981 amendment____” Thurston v. Judges’ Retirement Plan
Merchants Bonding Co. v. Pima County 860 P.2d 510 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Merchants Bonding Co. v. Pima County 860 P.2d 510 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
(condition must occur before duty of immediate performance arises); Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 225(1) at 165 (“Performance of a duty subject to a condition cannot become due unless the condition occurs____”); 13 Am.
Thurston v. Judges' Retirement Plan 868 P.2d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Thurston v. Judges' Retirement Plan 868 P.2d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
McClead v. Pima County 849 P.2d 1378 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
McClead v. Pima County 849 P.2d 1378 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
at 177 , 540 P.2d at 649 ( , ).
Troutman v. Valley Nat. Bank of Arizona 826 P.2d 810 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Troutman v. Valley Nat. Bank of Arizona 826 P.2d 810 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Black, Robertshaw, Frederick, Copple, & Wright, P.C.
Woerth v. City of Flagstaff 808 P.2d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Woerth v. City of Flagstaff 808 P.2d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Palicka v. Ruth Fisher Sch.
GM Development Corp. v. Community American Mortgage Corp. 795 P.2d 827 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
GM Development Corp. v. Community American Mortgage Corp. 795 P.2d 827 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Prairie State Bank, 155 Ariz. at 221 n. 1A, 745 P.2d at 968 n. 1A.
Transamerica Financial Corp. v. Superior Court 761 P.2d 1019 Ariz. 1988
Transamerica Financial Corp. v. Superior Court 761 P.2d 1019 Ariz. 1988
American Federation of Labor v. American Sash & Door Co.
Prairie State Bank v. Internal Revenue Service 745 P.2d 966 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Prairie State Bank v. Internal Revenue Service 745 P.2d 966 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Fund Manager, Public Safety Personnel Retirement System v. City of Phoenix Police Department Public Safety Personnel Retirement System … 728 P.2d 1237 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Fund Manager, Public Safety Personnel Retirement System v. City of Phoenix Police Department Public Safety Personnel Retirement System … 728 P.2d 1237 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Yeazell v. Copins The starting point in resolving the contentions of the parties is the decision of the *489
Norton v. Arizona Department of Public Safety Local Retirement Board 723 P.2d 652 Ariz. 1986
Norton v. Arizona Department of Public Safety Local Retirement Board 723 P.2d 652 Ariz. 1986
§ 38-842(15) only provides that the service credits shall be reinstated, , is dispositive of this issue.
Burke v. Arizona State Retirement System 732 P.2d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Burke v. Arizona State Retirement System 732 P.2d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Norton v. Arizona Department of Public Safety Local Retirement Board 723 P.2d 688 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Norton v. Arizona Department of Public Safety Local Retirement Board 723 P.2d 688 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Norton argues that he acquired “vested rights”
Carpenter v. Carpenter 722 P.2d 298 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Carpenter v. Carpenter 722 P.2d 298 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Opal rejects Sandra’s analysis, , , for the proposition that Everson established nothing new in Arizona law.
Huskie v. Ames Bros. Motor & Supply Co. 678 P.2d 977 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Huskie v. Ames Bros. Motor & Supply Co. 678 P.2d 977 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Godbey v. ROOSEVELT SCH. DIST. NO. 66, ETC. 638 P.2d 235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Godbey v. ROOSEVELT SCH. DIST. NO. 66, ETC. 638 P.2d 235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
City of Phoenix v. Boerger, 5 Ariz.App.
Abbott v. City of Tempe 630 P.2d 569 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Abbott v. City of Tempe 630 P.2d 569 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Therefore, they argue that the unilateral reduction of these benefits is a violation of their “contract of employment.” In support of this argument
Coronado Co. v. Jacome's Department Store, Inc. 629 P.2d 553 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Coronado Co. v. Jacome's Department Store, Inc. 629 P.2d 553 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Ruck Const. Co., Inc. v. City of Tucson 570 P.2d 220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Ruck Const. Co., Inc. v. City of Tucson 570 P.2d 220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Van Loan v. Van Loan 569 P.2d 214 Ariz. 1977
Van Loan v. Van Loan 569 P.2d 214 Ariz. 1977
Everson v. Everson, 24 Ariz.App.
Van Loan v. an Loan 568 P.2d 1076 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Van Loan v. an Loan 568 P.2d 1076 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
BENNETT EX REL., ARIZ. STATE PERS. COM'N. v. Beard 556 P.2d 1137 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
BENNETT EX REL., ARIZ. STATE PERS. COM'N. v. Beard 556 P.2d 1137 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Cavanagh v. Schaefer 545 P.2d 416 Ariz. 1976
Cavanagh v. Schaefer 545 P.2d 416 Ariz. 1976
Rochlin v. State 540 P.2d 643 Ariz. 1975
Rochlin v. State 540 P.2d 643 Ariz. 1975
Rengstorf v. City of Glendale 480 P.2d 27 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Rengstorf v. City of Glendale 480 P.2d 27 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
The plaintiffs urge the applicability of each of the following cases

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by