Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Campbell v. Chatwin, 428 P.2d 108.

75 citing documents.

Greg Mills v. Abtr Ariz. 2022
Greg Mills v. Abtr Ariz. 2022
(requiring exhaustion when taxpayer could file a petition for a hearing with the city auditor to reduce or eliminate a tax assessment); (requiring exhaustion when statutes provided mechanism whereby an individual whose driver license or vehicle registration was administratively suspended could request an administrative hearing).
SVENDSEN v. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 323 P.3d 1179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
SVENDSEN v. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 323 P.3d 1179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
logically contemplates a prior proceeding to be reviewed—an administrative hearing.”
Kimicata v. McGee 279 P.3d 631 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Kimicata v. McGee 279 P.3d 631 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
(party waived right to administrative hearing by failing to request one); cf. State, ex rel.
SEMPRE LTD. PARTNERSHIP v. Maricopa County 235 P.3d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
SEMPRE LTD. PARTNERSHIP v. Maricopa County 235 P.3d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Mullenaux v. Graham County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Mullenaux v. Graham County 82 P.3d 362 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Mullenaux v. Graham County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
See Campbell v. Chatwin, 102 Ariz. 251, (when administrative remedies are permissive, a party need not exhaust them).
Mullenaux v. Graham County 82 P.3d 362 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
(when administrative remedies are permissive, a party need not exhaust them).
Moulton v. Napolitano 73 P.3d 637 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Moulton v. Napolitano 73 P.3d 637 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
at 417-18 , 916 P.2d at 1133-34 ( , ).
Walters v. Maricopa County 990 P.2d 677 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Walters v. Maricopa County 990 P.2d 677 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Southwestern Paint & Varnish Co. v. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 976 P.2d 872 Ariz. 1999
Southwestern Paint & Varnish Co. v. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 976 P.2d 872 Ariz. 1999
the court noted that the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply where the remedy is permissive.
Southwestern Paint & Varnish Co. v. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 951 P.2d 1232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Southwestern Paint & Varnish Co. v. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 951 P.2d 1232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Medina v. Arizona Department of Transportation 916 P.2d 1130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Medina v. Arizona Department of Transportation 916 P.2d 1130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Estate of Bohn v. Waddell 848 P.2d 324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Estate of Bohn v. Waddell 848 P.2d 324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Boyce v. City of Scottsdale 756 P.2d 934 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Boyce v. City of Scottsdale 756 P.2d 934 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Sanchez-O'Brien Minerals Corp. v. State 717 P.2d 937 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Sanchez-O'Brien Minerals Corp. v. State 717 P.2d 937 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
St. Mary's Hospital & Health Center v. State 721 P.2d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
St. Mary's Hospital & Health Center v. State 721 P.2d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
459, 463 , 82 L.Ed.2d 638 (1938); Breeland v. Southern Pacific Company, 231 F.2d 576 (9th Cir.1955); , , , , , Ladd v. New York Central Railroad Co., 170 Ohio St.
Farmers Investment Co. v. Arizona State Land Department 666 P.2d 469 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Farmers Investment Co. v. Arizona State Land Department 666 P.2d 469 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
City of Tucson v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 619 P.2d 33 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
City of Tucson v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 619 P.2d 33 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Wallis v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 617 P.2d 534 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Wallis v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 617 P.2d 534 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
504 , reversed on other grounds, , (party failed to follow A.R.S.
Valley Vendors Corp. v. City of Phoenix 616 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Valley Vendors Corp. v. City of Phoenix 616 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
122 Ariz. at 224 , 594 P.2d at 90 ; , or when there is no clearly ascertainable administrative remedy.
Minor v. Cochise County 608 P.2d 309 Ariz. 1980
Minor v. Cochise County 608 P.2d 309 Ariz. 1980
Minor v. Cochise County 608 P.2d 313 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Univar Corp. v. City of Phoenix 594 P.2d 86 Ariz. 1979
Univar Corp. v. City of Phoenix 594 P.2d 86 Ariz. 1979
This doctrine is firmly entrenched in Arizona, , for such sound reasons as judicial economy and reliance on the expertise of the administrative body for initial adjudication.
Campbell v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. 586 P.2d 987 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Campbell v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. 586 P.2d 987 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Although exhaustion of remedies is a rule of judicial administration, , it is usually applied by virtue of express statutory mandate.
Foremost Life Insurance v. Trimble 580 P.2d 360 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Foremost Life Insurance v. Trimble 580 P.2d 360 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Town of Paradise Valley v. Gulf Leisure Corp. 557 P.2d 532 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Town of Paradise Valley v. Gulf Leisure Corp. 557 P.2d 532 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Arizona recognizes this long-settled rule of exhaustion of administrative remedies, , the reasoning of which is articulated in Pima Mining Company v. Industrial Commission, 11 Ariz.App.
State Board of Dental Examiners v. Hoffman 531 P.2d 161 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by