Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Neal v. City of Kingman, 817 P.2d 937.

30 citing documents.

Allen v. Adot Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Allen v. Adot Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
-50 (App. 3 ALLEN v. ADOT Decision of the Court 1992).
Dynometrics v. ades/enriquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Dynometrics v. ades/enriquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶ 20 (2023) (rejecting challenge to sufficiency of notice of appeal and noting courts’ “preference to look to substance rather than to form when interpreting procedural devices”); (holding that the notice of appeal of zoning decision need not “contain any ‘magic words’ or comply with technical rules of court pleading” but need only, “in some fashion, give fair notice of what will be challenged on appeal”).
Barriga v. ades/precision Ariz. 2024
Barriga v. ades/precision Ariz. 2024
(explaining that appellants must raise an issue at an administrative hearing to preserve the issue); see also ¶ 5 n.1.
Silk v. Blodgett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Silk v. Blodgett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
the Blodgetts argue the Silks waived this argument because they did not raise it in their notice of appeal to the Board.
Lemay v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Lemay v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
.” DeGroot v. Ariz. Racing Comm’n, -37 (1991).
Nova v. Mesa Board Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Nova v. Mesa Board Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
e application, plans, and related materials that were the subject of the original decision, any other materials presented at the appeal hearing, and—notably—“any written correspondence submitted after the appeal has been filed.” ¶18 “Failure to raise an issue at an administrative hearing that the administrative tribunal is competent to hear waives that issue.”
Mahmoodi v. Adot Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Mahmoodi v. Adot Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
(noting that "failure to raise an issue at an administrative hearing" waives the issue).
Son Silver v. Sedona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Son Silver v. Sedona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
SSW did not raise this argument before the BOA.1 ¶12 “Failure to raise an issue at an administrative hearing that the administrative tribunal is competent to hear waives that issue.” (finding that a vested rights issue was waived where it was not raised before the board of adjustment) (citing Rouse v. Scottsdale Unified Sch.
Stagecoach Trails MHC, L.L.C. v. City of Benson 295 P.3d 943 Ariz. 2013
Stagecoach Trails MHC, L.L.C. v. City of Benson 295 P.3d 943 Ariz. 2013
See, e.g., Neal v. 7 City of Kingman, (holding that under § 9-462.06, a trial court can only review claims litigated before the board of adjustment and may not review additional claims not raised before the board); Sw.
Abdulkadir Hourani v. Benson Hospital Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Abdulkadir Hourani v. Benson Hospital Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Ctr., 503 F.2d 512, 515 (4th Cir. 1974) (claim of bias and prejudice must be raised promptly after knowledge of alleged disqualification); Pavlik v. Chinle Unified Sch.
Southwest Soil Remediation, Inc. v. City of Tucson 36 P.3d 1208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Southwest Soil Remediation, Inc. v. City of Tucson 36 P.3d 1208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Pingitore v. Town of Cave Creek 981 P.2d 129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Pingitore v. Town of Cave Creek 981 P.2d 129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Whiteco Outdoor Advertising v. City of Tucson 972 P.2d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Whiteco Outdoor Advertising v. City of Tucson 972 P.2d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Id.; , vacated in part on other grounds
Watahomigie v. BD. OF WATER QUALITY APP. 887 P.2d 550 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Watahomigie v. BD. OF WATER QUALITY APP. 887 P.2d 550 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
showed that the Board properly dismissed the Tribe's appeal.
Watahomigie v. Arizona Board of Water Quality Appeals 887 P.2d 550 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Watahomigie v. Arizona Board of Water Quality Appeals 887 P.2d 550 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
It argued that the Arizona Supreme Court’s , showed that the Board properly dismissed the Tribe’s appeal.