Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Stuart v. Winslow Elementary School District No. 1, 414 P.2d 976.

30 citing documents.

Clarritt v. Scott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Clarritt v. Scott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Aldrich and Steinberger v. Martin 837 P.2d 1180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Aldrich and Steinberger v. Martin 837 P.2d 1180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
In Stuart v. Winslow Elementary School District No. 1, , for instance, the court held that a school district or a county stands in privity with its taxpayers with the result that a judgment against a county in a suit by one taxpayer bars subsequent lawsuits by other taxpayers.
State v. City Court of City of Tucson 673 P.2d 988 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. City Court of City of Tucson 673 P.2d 988 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Stuart v. Winslow Elementary School District No. 1, Navajo County
Talley v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 670 P.2d 741 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Talley v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 670 P.2d 741 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Stuart v. Winslow Elementary School District No. 1
Jordan v. Jordan 643 P.2d 1008 Ariz. 1982
Jordan v. Jordan 643 P.2d 1008 Ariz. 1982
Compare Stuart v. Winslow Elementary School District No. 1, , (an erroneous judgment is conclusive between the parties) , (law of the case inapplicable if different evidence is provided at the second hearing).
Arizona Downs v. Superior Court of Ariz. 623 P.2d 1229 Ariz. 1981
Arizona Downs v. Superior Court of Ariz. 623 P.2d 1229 Ariz. 1981
Stuart v. Winslow Elementary School District No. 1
Cockerham v. Zikratch 619 P.2d 739 Ariz. 1980
Cockerham v. Zikratch 619 P.2d 739 Ariz. 1980
Stuart v. Winslow Elementary School District No. 1, , Tube City, supra.
Perper v. Pima County 600 P.2d 52 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Perper v. Pima County 600 P.2d 52 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Stuart v. Winslow Elementary School District No. 1
El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. State 599 P.2d 175 Ariz. 1979
El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. State 599 P.2d 175 Ariz. 1979
Stuart v. Winslow Elementary School District No. 1, , DeMaio v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co., 247 Md.
Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 2 v. Superior Court 596 P.2d 701 Ariz. 1979
Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 2 v. Superior Court 596 P.2d 701 Ariz. 1979
See Stuart v. Winslow Elementary School District No. 1
All Star Coach, Inc. v. Industrial Commission 545 P.2d 965 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
All Star Coach, Inc. v. Industrial Commission 545 P.2d 965 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
1 While this construction of the statute might be possible from a literal reading of that portion of the statute standing alone, when it is read in conjunction with the rest of the statute, as required by the accepted canons of statutory construction (E.g., Stuart v. Winslow Elementary School District No. 1, Navajo County, , ), as well as in conjunction with the decisions of the Arizona Supreme Court such as Rodgers, supra, and the cases cited therein, , it becomes clear that such a literal read
Sult v. O'BRIEN 488 P.2d 1021 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Sult v. O'BRIEN 488 P.2d 1021 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Appellants have cited to us several cases in support of this contention, namely, Stuart v. Winslow Elementary School District No. 1, , ; , ; Ross v. School District No. 16, , , ; Hopkins v. School District No. 11, , 181 P. 366 (1919); King v. H
Lueck v. Superior Court in & for the County of Cochise 457 P.2d 348 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Lueck v. Superior Court in & for the County of Cochise 457 P.2d 348 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Stuart v. Winslow Elementary School District No. 1
Markel v. Transamerica Title Insurance 435 P.2d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Markel v. Transamerica Title Insurance 435 P.2d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Counsel have cited no Arizona cases exactly in point regarding the effect of the judgment from which an appeal is taken without supersedeas, although the two cases of Stuart v. Winslow Elementary School District #1, , and School District #1 , as well as the U. S. District Court case of Zannaras v. Bagdad Copper Corp., 260 F.2d 575 (1958), would indicate that in Arizona persons or parties not restrained or enjoined by s
School Dist. 1 v. Snowflake Union High School District 414 P.2d 985 Ariz. 1966
School Dist. 1 v. Snowflake Union High School District 414 P.2d 985 Ariz. 1966
No. 1, Navajo County, Ariz., are involved herein and will not be repeated.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by