Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Yavapai County v. O'Neill, 29 P. 430.

32 citing documents.

State Ex Rel. Department of Health Services v. Cochise County 800 P.2d 578 Ariz. 1990
State Ex Rel. Department of Health Services v. Cochise County 800 P.2d 578 Ariz. 1990
See Norcor, 122 Ariz. at 543 , 596 P.2d at 378 ; Yavapai County v. O’Neill, , 29 P. 430 (1892) (filing a claim with the county within 6 months of accrual is a condition precedent to suit).
TUSCON MEDICAL CENTER v. Apache County 682 P.2d 1143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
TUSCON MEDICAL CENTER v. Apache County 682 P.2d 1143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
See Yavapai County v. O’Neill, , 29 P. 430 (1892) , 127 P. 758 (1912).
Norcor of America v. Southern Arizona International Livestock Ass'n 596 P.2d 377 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
American Credit Bureau v. Pima County 596 P.2d 380 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Norcor of America v. Southern Arizona International Livestock Ass'n 596 P.2d 377 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
In Yavapai County v. O’Neill, , 29 P. 430 (1892), the court held that the county claims statutes set out an exclusive method of pursuing a claim against a county and that compliance with them is a condition precedent to the maintenance of an action against a county.
American Credit Bureau v. Pima County 596 P.2d 380 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Yavapai County v. O’Neill, , 29 P. 430 (1892).
Kerby v. State Ex Rel. Frohmiller 157 P.2d 698 Ariz. 1945
Followed Kerby v. State Ex Rel. Frohmiller 157 P.2d 698 Ariz. 1945
Yavapai County v. O’Neill, , 29 Pac.
State of Arizona v. Angle 104 P.2d 172 Ariz. 1940
State of Arizona v. Angle 104 P.2d 172 Ariz. 1940
(2d) 232 ; Yavapai County v. O’Neill, , 29 Pac.
Hutchins v. Frohmiller 103 P.2d 956 Ariz. 1940
Hutchins v. Frohmiller 103 P.2d 956 Ariz. 1940
In the case of Yavapai County v. O’Neill, , 29 Pac.
Ward v. Frohmiller 100 P.2d 167 Ariz. 1940
Ward v. Frohmiller 100 P.2d 167 Ariz. 1940
The respondent apparently relies chiefly upon the cases of Yavapai County v. O’Neill, , 29 Pac.
Maricopa County v. Sharrit 67 P.2d 232 Ariz. 1937
Maricopa County v. Sharrit 67 P.2d 232 Ariz. 1937
It is settled law in Arizona, and has been since the decision in Yavapai County v. O’Neill, , 29 Pac.
Maricopa County v. Norris 66 P.2d 258 Ariz. 1937
Maricopa County v. Norris 66 P.2d 258 Ariz. 1937
This court, in Yavapai County v. O’Neill, , 29 Pac.
Yuma County v. Hanneman 28 P.2d 622 Ariz. 1934
Yuma County v. Hanneman 28 P.2d 622 Ariz. 1934
We have held in the case of Yavapai County v. O’Neill, , 29 Pac.
Santa Cruz County v. McKnight 177 P. 256 Ariz. 1918
Santa Cruz County v. McKnight 177 P. 256 Ariz. 1918
Such were the cases of Yavapai County v. O’Neill, , 29 Pac.
Phillips v. County of Graham 149 P. 755 Ariz. 1915
Phillips v. County of Graham 149 P. 755 Ariz. 1915
The decisions in Yavapai County v. O’Neill, , 29 Pac.
Cochise County v. Wilcox 127 P. 758 Ariz. 1912
Cochise County v. Wilcox 127 P. 758 Ariz. 1912
de from the treasury of the counties of this territory unless the claim or demand shall be duly allowed according to the provisions of this title.” Title 14, chapter 2, Revised Statutes of 1901, entitled “County Government,” in which the sections quoted above are found, provides for the manner of establishing and enforcing claims against a county, and this court held in Yavapai County v. O’Neill, , 29 Pac.
County of Coconino v. Board of Supervisors 89 P. 543 Ariz. 1907
County of Coconino v. Board of Supervisors 89 P. 543 Ariz. 1907
The appellees contend that such mileage should be paid for the distance traveled until the warrant is completely executed by disposing of the prisoner as the warrant directs, and that this construction is now the rule of this court as established in the cases of Yavapai Co. v. O’Neill, , 29 Pac.
Gila County v. Thompson 37 P. 22 Ariz. 1894
Gila County v. Thompson 37 P. 22 Ariz. 1894
The officer is allowed mileage “for removing a prisoner”; but as was held by this court in Yavapai County v. O’Neill, , 29 Pac.