Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Arizona Board of Regents v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., 806 P.2d 348.

69 citing documents.

Abraham v. Arizona Board of Regents Ariz. 2026
of Regents v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.
GOLDWATER v. PHOENIX Ariz. 2026
of Regents v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., Scottsdale Unified School Dist.
EVANS v. FERNANDEZ Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Santa Cruz County, Alma Schultz v. Audit USA, John Brakey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
Santa Cruz County, Alma Schultz v. Audit USA, John Brakey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
Newspapers, Inc., -59 (1991).
Goldwater v. City of Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Goldwater v. City of Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Newspapers, Inc., 167 Ariz. 254 (1991); Scottsdale Unified Sch.
Matthew Abraham ph.D. v. Arizona Board of Regents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
Matthew Abraham ph.D. v. Arizona Board of Regents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
of Regents v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.
Reilly v. Mayo Clinic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Reilly v. Mayo Clinic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Allen v. Ieng Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Allen v. Ieng Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Prakelt v. Reform Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Prakelt v. Reform Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Cope v. Rawls Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Cope v. Rawls Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
of Regents v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.
Dbt Yuma LLC v. Ycaa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Dbt Yuma LLC v. Ycaa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
of Regents v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.
Beau Hodai v. the City of Tucson and Tucson Police Department 365 P.3d 959 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Beau Hodai v. the City of Tucson and Tucson Police Department 365 P.3d 959 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Newspapers, Inc., (evidence that in “some cases” publicity regarding university presidency candidates resulted in “lesser qualified, but thicker skinned” candidates satisfied best interests of state exception).
Stewart v. Sterling Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Stewart v. Sterling Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Judicial Watch, Inc. v. City of Phoenix 267 P.3d 1185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Judicial Watch, Inc. v. City of Phoenix 267 P.3d 1185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
of Regents v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.
Phoenix New Times, L.L.C. v. Arpaio 177 P.3d 275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Phoenix New Times, L.L.C. v. Arpaio 177 P.3d 275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
West Valley View, Inc. v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Office 165 P.3d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
West Valley View, Inc. v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Office 165 P.3d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
of Regents v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., , (quoting Tucson Public Schs.
Griffis v. Pinal County 141 P.3d 780 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Griffis v. Pinal County 141 P.3d 780 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
of Regents v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., , (“We are not bound by the trial court’s conclusions of law and are free to draw our own conclusions of law from the facts found by the trial court.”).
Arizona Minority Coalition for Fair Redistricting v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission 121 P.3d 843 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Arizona Minority Coalition for Fair Redistricting v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission 121 P.3d 843 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
of Regents v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.
London v. Broderick 80 P.3d 769 Ariz. 2003
London v. Broderick 80 P.3d 769 Ariz. 2003
of Regents v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.
In re United States Currency In Amount of $26,980.00 18 P.3d 85 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
In re United States Currency In Amount of $26,980.00 18 P.3d 85 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
of Regents v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., , see also Smith v. Arizona Dep’t of Transp., , (administrative decision on whether state satisfied burden of proof by a preponderance of evidence upheld unless no substantial evidence supports decision).
Bolm v. Custodian of Records of Tucson Police Department 969 P.2d 200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Bolm v. Custodian of Records of Tucson Police Department 969 P.2d 200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
¶ 16 “ “Where there is room for two opinions, the action is not ax’bitrary and capricious if exercised honestly and upon due consideration, even though it may be believed that an erroneous conclusion has been reached.’” , quoting Tucson Public Schools, Dist.
Simpson v. Committee Against Unconstitutional Takings, L.L.C. 972 P.2d 1027 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Simpson v. Committee Against Unconstitutional Takings, L.L.C. 972 P.2d 1027 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
of Regents v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.
Fritz v. City of Kingman 957 P.2d 337 Ariz. 1998
Fritz v. City of Kingman 957 P.2d 337 Ariz. 1998
Scottsdale Unified School District No. 48 v. KPNX Broadcasting Co. 955 P.2d 534 Ariz. 1998
Scottsdale Unified School District No. 48 v. KPNX Broadcasting Co. 955 P.2d 534 Ariz. 1998
of Regents v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.
Schwichtenberg v. State 951 P.2d 449 Ariz. 1997
Schwichtenberg v. State 951 P.2d 449 Ariz. 1997
of Regents v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.
Scottsdale Unified School District No. 48 of Maricopa County v. KPNX Broadcasting Co. 937 P.2d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Scottsdale Unified School District No. 48 of Maricopa County v. KPNX Broadcasting Co. 937 P.2d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Arizona Board of Regents v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., , (citing Carlson, 141 Ariz. at 491 , 687 P.2d at 1246 ).
Mohave Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Byers 942 P.2d 451 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997