Maricopa County v. Biaett

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding, in reliance on A.R.S. § 11-601(2), that attorney fees resulting from litigation concerning the scope of duties of the county recorder’s office were a county charge
• “[C]onclusions of ultimate facts and law do not satisfy the requirement that specific facts be set forth which show a genuine issue of material fact . . . .”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Fleming v. Pima County
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1984-06-18· cited 61×
• Riley, Hoggatt & Suagee, P.C. v. English
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1993-12-09· cited 21×
• Board of Supervisors v. Woodall
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1978-04-21· cited 3×
• BOARD OF SUP'RS OF MARICOPA CTY. v. Woodall
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1978-04-21
• Sanchez v. Maricopa County
  Arizona Supreme Court· 2025-07-21

Cites

5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Elerick v. Rocklin
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1967-03-15· cited 32×
• Isley v. School District No. 2 of Maricopa County
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1956-12-26· cited 22×
• Austin v. Barrett
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1932-11-23· cited 22×
• Harmon v. Szrama
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1967-07-07· cited 21×
• Holdren v. Peterson
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1938-10-03· cited 5×