Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Arizona Department of Revenue v. Dougherty, 29 P.3d 862.

34 citing documents.

Plea v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Plea v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
In general, the factual considerations inherent in the decision to grant or deny class certification are left to the trial judge’s discretion and will not be set aside absent an abuse of that discretion.” Ariz. Dep’t ¶ 7 (2001) (citation omitted).
Sun City v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Sun City v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Our obligation is to consider “the plain meaning of the words as enacted.” Ariz. Dep’t ¶ 9 (2001).
Sonoran Peaks, LLC v. Maricopa County 340 P.3d 1107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Sonoran Peaks, LLC v. Maricopa County 340 P.3d 1107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
of Maricopa, , 4 ¶ 16, approved in part, vacated in part
Stearns v. Arizona Department of Revenue 291 P.3d 369 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Stearns v. Arizona Department of Revenue 291 P.3d 369 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
¶ 19 , (holding that a class representative must include in his notice of claim a “specific amount” for which his individual claim can be settled); Ariz. Dep’t , 522 n. 11, ¶ 24, , 869 n. 11 (2001) (holding that the class representative’s identification of a refund amount for her individual claim sufficed to preserve the class claim under A.R.S.
City of Phoenix v. Fields 199 P.3d 1220 Ariz. 2009
City of Phoenix v. Fields 199 P.3d 1220 Ariz. 2009
¶20 This construction of § 12-821.01(A) corresponds with our treatment of a class tax-refund claim in Arizona Department of Revenue v. Dougherty (Ladewig)
Stearns v. Arizona Department of Revenue 131 P.3d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Stearns v. Arizona Department of Revenue 131 P.3d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
In Re Leopoldo L. 99 P.3d 578 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
In Re Leopoldo L. 99 P.3d 578 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Nelson 90 P.3d 206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Nelson 90 P.3d 206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Clark Kerr v. M killian/az Dept of Revenue 84 P.3d 446 Ariz. 2004
Clark Kerr v. M killian/az Dept of Revenue 84 P.3d 446 Ariz. 2004
¶20 Shortly after the court of appeals issued Kerr IV, we held in Arizona Department of Revenue v. Dougherty, 200 Ariz. 515, (“Ladewig II”), that a class action can be used as a vehicle for bringing and exhausting certain administrative claims.
Bennett v. Napolitano 81 P.3d 311 Ariz. 2003
Bennett v. Napolitano 81 P.3d 311 Ariz. 2003
Petitioners concede the 3 See Ariz. Dep’t P.3d 862 (2001).
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
See, e.g., Ariz. Dep’t , 3 ¶ 15, (“Exhaustion of administrative remedies is therefore a prerequisite to bringing a tax court action for a refund.”), aff'd in relevant part, , Hamilton, 186 Ariz. at 593 , 925 P.2d at 734 ; , Estate of Bohn, 174 Ariz. at 245-46 , 848 P.2d at 330-31 .
Boynton v. Anderson 66 P.3d 88 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Boynton v. Anderson 66 P.3d 88 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Ugalde v. Burke 65 P.3d 103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Ugalde v. Burke 65 P.3d 103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
In Re Aaron M. 61 P.3d 34 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
In Re Aaron M. 61 P.3d 34 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Scheehle v. Justices of the Supreme Court 57 P.3d 379 Ariz. 2002
Scheehle v. Justices of the Supreme Court 57 P.3d 379 Ariz. 2002
1 ¶ 3 To determine whether subsection (C) authorizes this Court to require attorneys to act as arbitrators, “[i]n the absence of ambiguous statutory language or manifest legislative intent to the contrary, [we] should look to the plain meaning of the words as enacted.” Ariz. Dep’t ¶ 9 , ¶ 6 , (when statutory language is clear, “it is determinative” of construction); ¶ 7 , (best indication of a statute’s meaning is its language); Kr
Logan v. Forever Living Products International, Inc. 52 P.3d 760 Ariz. 2002
Logan v. Forever Living Products International, Inc. 52 P.3d 760 Ariz. 2002
Arizona Dep’t , , 864 ¶ 7 (2001).
People's Choice TV Corp. v. City of Tucson 46 P.3d 412 Ariz. 2002
People's Choice TV Corp. v. City of Tucson 46 P.3d 412 Ariz. 2002