Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Open Primary Elections Now v. Bayless, 969 P.2d 649.

42 citing documents.

Denitang v. Arizona Therapy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Denitang v. Arizona Therapy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Wetherilt v. Moore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Wetherilt v. Moore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Parker, Springer Jr., Anderson v. Committee for Sustainable Retirement in Support of Initiative 314 P.3d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Parker, Springer Jr., Anderson v. Committee for Sustainable Retirement in Support of Initiative 314 P.3d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Harris, 192 P.3d at 165-66; State Comp.
Home Depot USA, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 287 P.3d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Home Depot USA, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 287 P.3d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Sklar v. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS 207 P.3d 702 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Sklar v. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS 207 P.3d 702 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE MOVING ARIZONA'S ECONOMY v. Brewer 196 P.3d 229 Ariz. 2008
TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE MOVING ARIZONA'S ECONOMY v. Brewer 196 P.3d 229 Ariz. 2008
Committee for Preservation of Established Neighborhoods v. Riffel 141 P.3d 422 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Committee for Preservation of Established Neighborhoods v. Riffel 141 P.3d 422 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Barth v. Cochise County 138 P.3d 1186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Barth v. Cochise County 138 P.3d 1186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Gregg Forszt And Vestar Arizona Xli, L.L.C. v. F. Ann Rodriguez and Stop O v. Outrageous Giveaways Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Gregg Forszt And Vestar Arizona Xli, L.L.C. v. F. Ann Rodriguez and Stop O v. Outrageous Giveaways Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
We resolve questions of law involving statutory construction de novo.”
Jeter v. Mayo Clinic Arizona 121 P.3d 1256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Jeter v. Mayo Clinic Arizona 121 P.3d 1256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Kristopher M Sippel v. Elliott E Fisher Ariz. 2005
Kristopher M Sippel v. Elliott E Fisher Ariz. 2005
¶ 9, reviews its factual findings for clear error, id., and reviews its legal conclusions de novo, ¶ 9
John C. Lincoln Hospital v. Maricopa County 96 P.3d 530 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
John C. Lincoln Hospital v. Maricopa County 96 P.3d 530 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
¶ 14 , (affirming dismissal of promissory estoppel argument because “[e]ven under the facts as alleged by appellants [the government officials] never reduced the alleged agreement to writing, and no degree of formality characterized the purported agreement”).
Long v. City of Glendale 93 P.3d 519 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Long v. City of Glendale 93 P.3d 519 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
¶ 14 , (affirming dismissal of promissory estoppel argument because “[e]ven under the facts as alleged by appellants [the government officials] never reduced the alleged agreement to writing, and no degree of formality characterized the purported agreement”).
Nordstrom, Inc. v. Maricopa County 88 P.3d 1165 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Nordstrom, Inc. v. Maricopa County 88 P.3d 1165 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Better Homes Construction, Inc. v. Goldwater 53 P.3d 1139 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Better Homes Construction, Inc. v. Goldwater 53 P.3d 1139 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
University Medical Center Corp. v. Department of Revenue 36 P.3d 1217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
University Medical Center Corp. v. Department of Revenue 36 P.3d 1217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Washington Elementary School District No. 6 v. Maricopa County 30 P.3d 655 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Washington Elementary School District No. 6 v. Maricopa County 30 P.3d 655 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Sherman v. City of Tempe 24 P.3d 1285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Sherman v. City of Tempe 24 P.3d 1285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
¶ 12 Because the facts in this case are not in dispute and “the question[s] presented involve[ ] statutory construction, we review the [trial] court’s decision de novo.” ¶ 5 , ¶ 9 , (“Because election contests are statutory proceedings, we evaluate appellants’ argument by considering the applicable statutory scheme.
Lawrence v. Jones 18 P.3d 1245 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Lawrence v. Jones 18 P.3d 1245 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Hoggatt 18 P.3d 1239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Hoggatt 18 P.3d 1239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Kyle v. Daniels 9 P.3d 1043 Ariz. 2000
Kyle v. Daniels 9 P.3d 1043 Ariz. 2000