Rinderknecht v. Maricopa County Employees Merit System

526 P.2d 713, 111 Ariz. 174, 1974 Ariz. LEXIS 388
CourtArizona Supreme Court
DecidedSeptember 20, 1974
Docket11576-PR
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 526 P.2d 713 (Rinderknecht v. Maricopa County Employees Merit System) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Arizona Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Rinderknecht v. Maricopa County Employees Merit System, 526 P.2d 713, 111 Ariz. 174, 1974 Ariz. LEXIS 388 (Ark. 1974).

Opinion

CAMERON, Vice Chief Justice.

We granted a petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals. Division One, on 28 May 1974.

After granting the petition for review of the opinion and decision of the Court of Appeals, the parties hereto presented to this court the following stipulation and proposed order:

“IT IS STIPULATED:

“1. This matter has been settled by agreement between the parties; and
“2. The cause may be dismissed with prejudice and each party is to bear their own costs.
^ *}í íft

ORDER

“On stipulation of the parties, IT IS ORDERED:

“1. Vacating the Order of this Court dated 28 May 1974 granting a Petition for Review.
“2. Vacating the Order of the Court of Appeals, Division One, dated 26 March 1974, which reversed the lower court’s decision and remanded the cause for further proceedings.
“3. Remanding this cause to the Superi- or Court with instructions to enter an Order dismissing the cause with prejudice.”

Because the opinion of the Court of Appeals has been published and may be relied upon if not vacated, we feel that it is proper to also vacate the opinion of the Court of Appeals, Division One, in this matter.

Upon the issuance of the mandate of this court in this matter, it is therefore ordered :

1. That the order of this court dated 28 May 1974 granting a petition for review be vacated;

2. That the order and opinion of the Court of Appeals, Division One, which reversed the lower court’s decision and remanded the cause tor further proceedings be vacated; and

3. That the cause is remanded to the Superior Court with instructions to enter an order dismissing the cause with prejudice.

HAYS, C. J., and STRUCKMEYER, LOCKWOOD and HOLOHAN, JJ„ concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Miller v. City of Little Rock
743 S.W.2d 9 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 1988)
Widomski v. CHIEF OF POLICE OF BALTIMORE CTY.
397 A.2d 222 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1979)
City of New Brunswick v. Speights
384 A.2d 225 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1978)
City of New Brunswick v. Speights
384 A.2d 225 (Middlesex County Superior Court, 1978)
Selectmen of Framingham v. MUN. COURT THE CT., BOSTON
369 N.E.2d 1145 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
526 P.2d 713, 111 Ariz. 174, 1974 Ariz. LEXIS 388, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rinderknecht-v-maricopa-county-employees-merit-system-ariz-1974.