Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Collins v. Krucker, 104 P.2d 176.

43 citing documents.

Strojnik v. Brnovich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Strojnik v. Brnovich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Finkel v. Az State Brd of Nursing Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Finkel v. Az State Brd of Nursing Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Compassionate v. adhs/nelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Compassionate v. adhs/nelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Thus, an action for mandamus may still be brought “if it clearly appears that the officer has acted arbitrarily and unjustly and in the abuse of discretion[.]”
Ponderosa v. Coconino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Ponderosa v. Coconino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
In contrast, “if an action of a public officer is discretionary that discretion may not be controlled by mandamus.” 3 ¶20 Appellees claim they are “beneficially interested” in the County’s refusal to call the bonds, because the bond monies are necessary 3 Appellees do not assert, as alternative grounds for mandamus, that the County acted arbitrarily in refusing to call the bonds.
Sensing v. Harris 172 P.3d 856 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Sensing v. Harris 172 P.3d 856 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Sears v. Hull 961 P.2d 1013 Ariz. 1998
Sears v. Hull 961 P.2d 1013 Ariz. 1998
Because a mandamus action is designed to compel performance of an act the law requires, “[t]he general rule is that if the action of a public officer is discretionary that discretion may not be controlled by mandamus.”
Cooper v. Arizona Bd. of Pardons and Paroles 717 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1986
Miceli v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 659 P.2d 30 Ariz. 1983
Miceli v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 659 P.2d 30 Ariz. 1983
“This rule, however, is qualified by the provision that if it clearly appears that an officer has acted arbitrarily and unjustly and in the abuse of discretion, the action may still be brought.” Id.
Litchfield Elementary School District No. 79 v. Babbitt 608 P.2d 792 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Litchfield Elementary School District No. 79 v. Babbitt 608 P.2d 792 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
State v. State Board of Land Commissioners, 131 Mont.
Milburn v. Burns 400 P.2d 354 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Milburn v. Burns 400 P.2d 354 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
at page 179 (1940), the Arizona Supreme Court stated (at page 13 of the Arizona Reports) “The general rule is that if the action of a public officer is discretionary that discretion may not be controlled by mandamus.
Application of Trico Electric Cooperative, Inc. 377 P.2d 309 Ariz. 1962
Application of Trico Electric Cooperative, Inc. 377 P.2d 309 Ariz. 1962
Whitfield Transportation, , ; , ; , ; , .
Rhodes v. Clark 373 P.2d 348 Ariz. 1962
Rhodes v. Clark 373 P.2d 348 Ariz. 1962
Senner v. Bank of Douglas 354 P.2d 48 Ariz. 1960
Senner v. Bank of Douglas 354 P.2d 48 Ariz. 1960
* * * The commission cannot * * * refuse arbitrarily or capriciously to license those named and possessing the qualifications prescribed by law, and which corporations have complied with all the provisions of the law entitling them to a license.” , , the scope of a writ of mandamus was defined as follows: *199 “The general rule is that if the action of a public officer is discretionary that discretion may not be controlled by mandamus.
Hertz Drive-Ur-Self System, Inc. v. Tucson Airport Authority 299 P.2d 1071 Ariz. 1956
Hertz Drive-Ur-Self System, Inc. v. Tucson Airport Authority 299 P.2d 1071 Ariz. 1956
since a public officer’s discretion may not be controlled by the writ of mandamus if the public officer has not acted arbitrarily and in abuse of discretion, Brown v. City of Phoenix, supra, , , , , the trial court did not err in directing that plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed and the writ of mandamus quashed.
Arizona State Highway Commission v. Superior Court 299 P.2d 783 Ariz. 1956
Arizona State Highway Commission v. Superior Court 299 P.2d 783 Ariz. 1956
This rule, however, is qualified by the provision that if it clearly appears that the officer has acted arbitrarily and unjustly and in the abuse of discretion, the action may still be brought.” , .
Chesley v. Jones 299 P.2d 179 Ariz. 1956
Chesley v. Jones 299 P.2d 179 Ariz. 1956
State Ex Rel. Morrison v. Nabours 286 P.2d 752 Ariz. 1955
State Ex Rel. Morrison v. Nabours 286 P.2d 752 Ariz. 1955
this court in construing this section had occasion to say: “It is apparent from this that the question ,as to whether the various .
Brown v. City of Phoenix 272 P.2d 358 Ariz. 1954
Brown v. City of Phoenix 272 P.2d 358 Ariz. 1954
179: ‘The general rule is that if the action of a public officer is discretionary that discretion may not be controlled by mandamus.
Adams v. Bolin 271 P.2d 472 Ariz. 1954
Adams v. Bolin 271 P.2d 472 Ariz. 1954
Collins (Board of Supervisors) v. Krucker, [56] Ariz. [6], .
Peters v. Frye 223 P.2d 176 Ariz. 1950
Peters v. Frye 223 P.2d 176 Ariz. 1950
179: “The general rule is that if the action of a public officer is discretionary that discretion may not be controlled by mandamus.
State v. Phelps 193 P.2d 921 Ariz. 1948
State v. Phelps 193 P.2d 921 Ariz. 1948
Collins (Board of Supervisors) v. Krucker, , .
State of Arizona v. Barnum 118 P.2d 1097 Ariz. 1941
Graham v. Moore 105 P.2d 962 Ariz. 1940