Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Miller v. BD. OF SUP'RS OF PINAL CTY., 855 P.2d 1357.

73 citing documents.

Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission v. Brain 311 P.3d 1093 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission v. Brain 311 P.3d 1093 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
of Supervisors of Pinal Cnty.
Ruben M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 282 P.3d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Ruben M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 282 P.3d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
of Supervisors of Pinal Cnty., , City of Tucson v. Whiteco Metrocom, Inc., -97, ¶¶ 23-24 , -66 (App.1999) (remanding because findings failed to address issues necessary to review the court’s application of the law).
Murphy Farrell Development, LLLP v. Sourant 272 P.3d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Murphy Farrell Development, LLLP v. Sourant 272 P.3d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
of Sup’rs of Pinal County, -300 , -61 (1993) (reviewing sufficiency of trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law without deference to court).
Scottsdale Memorial Health Systems, Inc. v. Maricopa County 228 P.3d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Scottsdale Memorial Health Systems, Inc. v. Maricopa County 228 P.3d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
of Supervisors of Pinal Cotmty, , 299, , 1360 (1993) (superior court’s findings pursuant to Rule 52 must be “sufficiently specific to allow an appellate court to test the validity of the judgment”) (quotation omitted).
Bennett James L. Bennett Money Purchase Pension Plan Meyerstein v. Baxter Group Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Jenkins v. Hale 190 P.3d 175 Ariz. 2008
Jenkins v. Hale 190 P.3d 175 Ariz. 2008
of Supervisors of Pinal County, 855 - 4 - P.2d 1357, 1362 (1993); Bd.
Stonecreek Bldg. Co., Inc. v. Shure 162 P.3d 675 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
of Supervisors, , (stating that the court’s authority is to affirm, reverse, modify, or remand to the trial court).
Marriage of Breitbart-Napp v. Napp 163 P.3d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
of Supervisors, , ( , ).
Anderson v. Contes 128 P.3d 239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Anderson v. Contes 128 P.3d 239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
of Supervisors of Pinal County, , (“Where possible, when a trial court in a non-jury ease fails to make or makes insufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law, a reviewing court should remand the case to the trial court for further findings.”).
Douglas Auto & Equipment v. State Comp fund/zazueta 45 P.3d 342 Ariz. 2002
of Supervisors, Shelby Sch.
Douglas Auto & Equipment v. Industrial Commission 21 P.3d 855 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
The supreme court applied the rule, for example, , in which the trial court ruled that the candidate had collected insufficient signatures on his nominating petitions to place his name on the ballot.
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 Supervisors, , quoting Star Realty Co. v. Sellers, 73 N.M.
City of Tucson v. Whiteco Metrocom, Inc. 983 P.2d 759 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
McDowell Mountain Ranch Land Coalition v. Vizcaino 945 P.2d 312 Ariz. 1997
set forth the reasons for its issuance.” Findings are sufficient if they are “pertinent to the issues and comprehensive enough to provide a basis for the decision.” , ( , ).
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Department of Corrections 934 P.2d 801 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Department of Corrections 934 P.2d 801 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
of Supervisors of Pinal County, , (citation omitted).