Cited by

¶ 27 (2006) (concluding that delivering a notice of claim to one member of the board of supervisors was not service on the board even though the member forwarded such claims to the clerk of the board).

¶ 1 (2006) (noting that the county clerk is authorized to accept service on the county’s behalf).

¶ 10 (2006) (“Actual notice and substantial compliance do not excuse failure to comply with the statutory requirements of A.R.S.

¶ 10 (2006) (“Actual notice and substantial compliance do not excuse failure to comply with the statutory requirements of A.R.S.

¶ 10 (2006); ¶ 11 (App. 2005).

(“Actual notice and substantial compliance do not excuse failure to comply with the statutory requirements .

¶ 15 (2006), but our supreme court did not interpret § 11-251(1) in Falcon.

¶ 10 (2006) (“If a notice of claim is not properly filed within the statutory time limit, a plaintiff’s claim is barred by statute.

¶ 10 (2006) (“If a notice of claim is not properly filed within the statutory time limit, a plaintiff’s claim is barred by statute.

-31, ¶¶ 30, 35 (2006) (affirming summary judgment in favor of defendant county because plaintiffs “did not properly serve” notice of claim on person authorized to accept service).

¶ 27 (2006) (explaining Rule 4.1 requires service on an authorized agent and “not on someone whose usual practice is to forward the claim to the [authorized agent]”).

¶ 10 (2006) (“Actual notice and substantial compliance do not excuse failure to comply with the statutory requirements.”).

¶ 10 (2006) (“Actual notice and substantial compliance do not excuse failure to comply with the statutory requirements.”).

¶¶ 16, 5 HEES, et al. v. MARICOPA COUNTY Decision of the Court 34 (2006) (holding that the Board of Supervisors is the proper entity to serve under Rule 4.1).

¶ 10 (2006) (“Actual notice and substantial compliance do not excuse failure to comply with the statutory requirements of A.R.S.

Sandoval v. Maricopa County , , ¶ 10