Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Deer Valley Unified School District No. 97 v. Houser, 152 P.3d 490.

175 citing documents.

Vasquez v. State 206 P.3d 753 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
No. 97 v. Houser, , quoting Falcon ex rel.
City of Phoenix v. Fields 193 P.3d 782 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
City of Phoenix v. Fields 193 P.3d 782 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
No. 97 v. Houser, ¶ 5 , (accepting jurisdiction over notice of claim dispute because the issue presented involved a matter of public importance); see also Sonoran Desert Investigations, ¶¶ 2-3
Yollin v. City of Glendale 191 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Yollin v. City of Glendale 191 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
No. 97 v. Houser, ¶ 8 , ¶ 7
James Colt Jones v. Cochise County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
James Colt Jones v. Cochise County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
y filed a motion requesting leave to amend its answer to “assert the affirmative defense of failure to comply with the notice of claim statute” and a motion to dismiss, asserting the Joneses’ notice of claim did not comply with § 12-821.01.1 To support its motion, the County primarily relied on our supreme court’s February 2007 decision in Deer Valley Unified School District No. 97 v. Houser, P.3d 490 (2007).
Haab v. County of Maricopa 191 P.3d 1025 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Haab v. County of Maricopa 191 P.3d 1025 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Marco C. v. Sean C. & Colleen C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Marco C. v. Sean C. & Colleen C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
No. 97 v. Houser, (statutory time limit must be strictly met).
Lee v. State 182 P.3d 1169 Ariz. 2008
Lee v. State 182 P.3d 1169 Ariz. 2008
No. 97 v. Houser, , 295 ¶6
UNITED DAIRYMEN OF ARIZONA v. Rawlings 177 P.3d 334 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
UNITED DAIRYMEN OF ARIZONA v. Rawlings 177 P.3d 334 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
No. 97 v. Houser, ¶ 8 , (quoting Janson ex rel.
State Ex Rel. Goddard v. WESTERN UNION FINANCIAL SERVICES INC. 166 P.3d 916 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State Ex Rel. Goddard v. WESTERN UNION FINANCIAL SERVICES INC. 166 P.3d 916 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
No. 97 v. Houser, ¶ 8 , (quoting Janson ex rel.
Save Our Valley Ass'n v. Arizona Corp. Commission 165 P.3d 194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. MABERY RANCH, CO., LLC 165 P.3d 211 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. MABERY RANCH, CO., LLC 165 P.3d 211 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
No. 97 v. Houser, ¶ 9 , (the "specific amount" requirement of the statute is "clear and unequivocal").
Save Our Valley Ass'n v. Arizona Corp. Commission 165 P.3d 194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
No. 97 v. Houser, ¶ 8 , (quoting Janson ex rel.
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Ellis 159 P.3d 578 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Ellis 159 P.3d 578 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
¶ 18 , which held that compliance with the specific requirements of the notice of claim statute was essential to the validity of the claim.
State v. Hansen 160 P.3d 166 Ariz. 2007
State v. Hansen 160 P.3d 166 Ariz. 2007
No. 97 v. Houser, ¶ 8, (quoting Janson ex rel.