Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite R.L. Augustine Construction Co. v. Peoria Unified School District No. 11, 936 P.2d 554.

39 citing documents.

Ball v. Ball 478 P.3d 704 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Ball v. Ball 478 P.3d 704 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Augustine Const. Co., (“We will not reach a constitutional question if a case can be fairly decided on nonconstitutional grounds.”); ¶ 11 (App. 1999) (“It is sound judicial policy to avoid deciding a case on constitutional grounds if there are nonconstitutional grounds dispos
Brush & Nib v. City of Phoenix Ariz. 2019
Brush & Nib v. City of Phoenix Ariz. 2019
Robin Silver v. Pueblo Del Sol Water Co 423 P.3d 348 Ariz. 2018
Robin Silver v. Pueblo Del Sol Water Co 423 P.3d 348 Ariz. 2018
No. 11, (agency rule must be “substantially consistent” with the statute).
Falcone Brothers & Associates, Inc. v. City of Tucson 381 P.3d 276 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Falcone Brothers & Associates, Inc. v. City of Tucson 381 P.3d 276 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Augustine Construction Co. v. Peoria Unified School District No. 11, “[w]e will not reach a constitutional question if a case can be fairly decided on nonconstitutional grounds.”
State v. George 313 P.3d 543 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Abdi 248 P.3d 209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. Abdi 248 P.3d 209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
No. 11, , ("We will not reach a constitutional question if a case can be fairly decided on nonconstitutional grounds.").
Gelb v. Department of Fire, Building & Life Safety 241 P.3d 512 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Gelb v. Department of Fire, Building & Life Safety 241 P.3d 512 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
No. 11, , ("We will not reach a constitutional question if a case can be fairly decided on nonconstitutional grounds.” (citing Petolicchio v. Santa Cruz Cnty.
Grosvenor Holdings v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Grosvenor Holdings v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
No. 11, P.2d 554 (1997), P.2d 238 (App. 1983), support its position.
Sharpe v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System 207 P.3d 741 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Sharpe v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System 207 P.3d 741 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
No. 11, , (stinking agency rules that wei’e not consistent with enabling *495 legislation).
In Re Gina Manny Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
In Re Gina Manny Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
No. 11, (“We will not reach a constitutional question if a case can be fairly decided on nonconstitutional grounds.”).
Renee Antonio Fragoso v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Renee Antonio Fragoso v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Ry-Tan Construction, Inc. v. Washington Elementary School District No. 6 93 P.3d 1095 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Ry-Tan Construction, Inc. v. Washington Elementary School District No. 6 93 P.3d 1095 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Augustine Construction Co. v. Peoría Unified School District No. 11, , our supreme court had “declared that the Procurement Code’s hearing provisions were inconsistent with A.R.S.
City of Phoenix v. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 74 P.3d 250 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
City of Phoenix v. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 74 P.3d 250 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
for the proposition that “[rjules that omit administrative or judicial review provisions required by statute are void.” To the extent the City argues that Article 10 somehow eliminates a party’s right to administrative or judicial review of a hazardous waste permit, we find the argument unpersua
Lynn v. Reinstein 68 P.3d 412 Ariz. 2003
Lynn v. Reinstein 68 P.3d 412 Ariz. 2003
No. 11, (stating that this court “will not reach a constitutional question if a case can be fairly decided on nonconstitutional grounds”).
City of Tempe v. Outdoor Systems, Inc. 32 P.3d 31 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
City of Tempe v. Outdoor Systems, Inc. 32 P.3d 31 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
No. 11, , ¶ 11 , (“It is sound judicial policy to avoid deciding a case on constitutional grounds if there are nonconstitutional grounds dispositive of the case.”).
Residential Utility Consumer Office v. Arizona Corp. Commission 20 P.3d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Residential Utility Consumer Office v. Arizona Corp. Commission 20 P.3d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
No. 11, , Comeau v. Arizona State Bd.
Katherine S. v. Foreman 4 P.3d 426 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Katherine S. v. Foreman 4 P.3d 426 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Phoenix Children's Hospital v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System Administration 987 P.2d 763 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Phoenix Children's Hospital v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System Administration 987 P.2d 763 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Pavlik v. Chinle Unified School District No. 24 985 P.2d 633 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Pavlik v. Chinle Unified School District No. 24 985 P.2d 633 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Augustine Construction Company, Inc. v. Peoria Unified School District No. 11, , rev’d on other grounds, , 2 supports the trial court in finding the appearance of bias in the case now before us. In Augustine, this court struck down as violative of due process a statute that allowed the school board to preside over a contract dispute to which the board itself was a party.
State Ex Rel. Department of Economic Security v. McEvoy 955 P.2d 988 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State Ex Rel. Department of Economic Security v. McEvoy 955 P.2d 988 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Dist., , (stating that reviewing court need not “reach a constitutional question if a ease can be fairly decided on nonconstitutional grounds”).