Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Kendall v. Malcolm, 404 P.2d 414.

40 citing documents.

Derek D. Fraser v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
Derek D. Fraser v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
This rule follows from the fact that administrative agencies have “no common law or 3 FRASER v. STATE Opinion of the Court inherent powers.”
McMichael-gombar v. Phoenix Civil Service Ariz. 2023
McMichael-gombar v. Phoenix Civil Service Ariz. 2023
¶12 As an administrative body, the Board holds “no common law or inherent powers.”
Rehab Arizona v. Ahcccs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Rehab Arizona v. Ahcccs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Robin Silver v. Pueblo Del Sol Water Co 423 P.3d 348 Ariz. 2018
Robin Silver v. Pueblo Del Sol Water Co 423 P.3d 348 Ariz. 2018
(noting that “[t]he powers and duties of an administrative agency are to be measured by the statute creating them”).
LaWALL v. PIMA COUNTY MERIT COMMISSION And SCAMMON 134 P.3d 394 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
LaWALL v. PIMA COUNTY MERIT COMMISSION And SCAMMON 134 P.3d 394 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
¶8 Administrative agencies “have no common law or inherent powers.”
Pima County v. Pima County Law Enforcement Merit System Council 119 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2005
Pima County v. Pima County Law Enforcement Merit System Council 119 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2005
Kimble v. City of Page 20 P.3d 605 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Kimble v. City of Page 20 P.3d 605 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Arizona State Board of Regents Ex Rel. Arizona State University v. Arizona State Personnel Board 985 P.2d 1032 Ariz. 1999
Arizona State Board of Regents Ex Rel. Arizona State University v. Arizona State Personnel Board 985 P.2d 1032 Ariz. 1999
Union Transportes De Nogales v. City of Nogales 985 P.2d 1025 Ariz. 1999
Union Transportes De Nogales v. City of Nogales 985 P.2d 1025 Ariz. 1999
(“The charter of a city is its organic law bearing the same relation as the constitution of the state bears to its statutes.”); , 276 P. 325, 327 (1929) (charter city can exercise powers over local matters “delegated to it by the Constitution and t
Hamilton v. City of Mesa 916 P.2d 1136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Hamilton v. City of Mesa 916 P.2d 1136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Finally, our supreme court has addressed a
Chalmers v. City of Tucson 829 P.2d 846 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Chalmers v. City of Tucson 829 P.2d 846 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
We begin our discussion of the applicable law with the propositions that Tucson’s Charter is its organic law, , and the city’s legislation must be consistent with the framework established by the charter.
City of Phoenix v. Phoenix Civil Service Board 818 P.2d 241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
City of Phoenix v. Phoenix Civil Service Board 818 P.2d 241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Achen-Gardner, Inc. v. Superior Court 809 P.2d 961 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Achen-Gardner, Inc. v. Superior Court 809 P.2d 961 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
(city charter bears same relation to ordinances as the constitution of the state bears to its statutes).
Allen v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 733 P.2d 290 Ariz. 1987
Allen v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 733 P.2d 290 Ariz. 1987
Ayala v. Hill 664 P.2d 238 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Ayala v. Hill 664 P.2d 238 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Cox v. Pima County Law Enforcement Merit System Council, 27 Ariz.App.
Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 2 v. Phoenix Employee Relations Board 650 P.2d 429 Ariz. 1982
Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 2 v. Phoenix Employee Relations Board 650 P.2d 429 Ariz. 1982
Cox v. Pima County Law Enforcement Merit System Council, 27 Ariz.App.
Fleming v. Pima County 611 P.2d 110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Fleming v. Pima County 611 P.2d 110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Cox v. PIMA CTY. LAW ENFORC. MERIT IMP. COUN 556 P.2d 342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Cox v. PIMA CTY. LAW ENFORC. MERIT IMP. COUN 556 P.2d 342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Shaffer v. Allt 545 P.2d 76 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Shaffer v. Allt 545 P.2d 76 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
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
Regarding administrative authority, , made the following pronouncement: “But the rule is that administrative officers and agencies have no common law or inherent powers, Gardner v. Ewing, D.C., 88 F.Supp.