Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Shaw v. State, 447 P.2d 262.

48 citing documents.

In Re: Anna Marie J. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
In Re: Anna Marie J. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
(“The judiciary cannot sit as a super-legislature to determine the wisdom, the necessity, or 8 IN RE: ANNA MARIE J. Decision of the Court the inconvenience of a legislative enactment.”).
Vangilder v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Vangilder v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
See J. C. Penney, 125 Ariz. at 472 ().
Lawall v. Rr Robertson 353 P.3d 375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Lawall v. Rr Robertson 353 P.3d 375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(“The judiciary cannot sit as a super-legislature to determine the wisdom, the necessity, or the inconvenience of a legislative enactment.”) (relying on M’Culloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819)); ¶ 18, (“[C]ourts c
In Re Estate of Winn 237 P.3d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
In Re Estate of Winn 237 P.3d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Phoenix Newspapers, , ( , ); Vo v. Superior Court (State ex rel.
Ziemak v. Schnakenberg 111 P.3d 1042 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Ziemak v. Schnakenberg 111 P.3d 1042 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
App.2003) (noting that “[i]t is not our domain to render any judgment on the merits” of policy arguments regarding wisdom of rule drafted by supreme court); Phoenix Newspapers, , (We do not “ ‘sit as a super-legislature to determine the wisdom, the necessity, or the inconvenience of a legislative enactment.’ ”)
Flood Control Dist. v. Gaines 43 P.3d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Flood Control Dist. v. Gaines 43 P.3d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
For example, , we upheld *202 as "not unreasonable" a statute requiring that an action to recover a license tax be filed within thirty days of payment.
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Purcell 927 P.2d 340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Purcell 927 P.2d 340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Although we note that the costs imposed by section 16-168(E) can be quite high, this court “cannot sit as a super-legislature to determine the wisdom, the necessity, or the inconvenience of a legislative enactment.”
Allen v. Girard 745 P.2d 192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Allen v. Girard 745 P.2d 192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Barrio v. San Manuel Division Hospital for Magma Copper Co. 692 P.2d 290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Barrio v. San Manuel Division Hospital for Magma Copper Co. 692 P.2d 290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
In fact, before an Arizona court will declare a statute unconstitutional, it must be satisfied “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Landgraff v. Wagner, supra
J. C. Penney Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 610 P.2d 471 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
J. C. Penney Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 610 P.2d 471 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
New v. Arizona Board of Regents 618 P.2d 238 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
New v. Arizona Board of Regents 618 P.2d 238 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
this court said: The state may set limitations upon the method and manner of bringing suit against the state as long as such methods are reasonable and do not violate any constitutional rights....
Industrial Commission v. C & D Pipeline, Inc. 607 P.2d 383 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Industrial Commission v. C & D Pipeline, Inc. 607 P.2d 383 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
The Commission urges that the judiciary should not sit as a super-legislature, , and that a judicial review of the legislative determination that market prevailing wages equal wage rates determined pursuant to labor negotiations is functus officio, beyond the obvious showing of reasonableness found in this case.
State v. SUPERIOR CT. IN AND FOR CTY. OF PIMA 585 P.2d 882 Ariz. 1978
State v. SUPERIOR CT. IN AND FOR CTY. OF PIMA 585 P.2d 882 Ariz. 1978
1028 , 10 L.Ed.2d 93 (1963)
White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker 585 P.2d 891 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker 585 P.2d 891 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
American Estate Life Insurance v. State 568 P.2d 1138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
American Estate Life Insurance v. State 568 P.2d 1138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Sutton, supra, 565 P.2d at 1280 .
State v. Sutton 565 P.2d 1278 Ariz. 1977
State v. Sutton 565 P.2d 1278 Ariz. 1977
Mardian Construction Co. v. Superior Court 557 P.2d 526 Ariz. 1976
Mardian Construction Co. v. Superior Court 557 P.2d 526 Ariz. 1976
White v. Kaibab Road Improvement District 550 P.2d 80 Ariz. 1976
White v. Kaibab Road Improvement District 550 P.2d 80 Ariz. 1976
Landgraff v. Wagner 546 P.2d 26 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Landgraff v. Wagner 546 P.2d 26 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. ARIZ. INS. GUAR. ASS'N 528 P.2d 839 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. ARIZ. INS. GUAR. ASS'N 528 P.2d 839 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
The court must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the statute is unconstitutional, , and a liberal construction be utilized in construing the legislation to uphold its constitutionality.
New Times, Inc. v. Arizona Board of Regents 519 P.2d 169 Ariz. 1974
New Times, Inc. v. Arizona Board of Regents 519 P.2d 169 Ariz. 1974
State v. Krug, supra; (3) the court must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the statute is unconstitutional, , ; (4) every intendment must be indulged in favor of the validity of the statute.
Yauch v. State 505 P.2d 1066 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Yauch v. State 505 P.2d 1066 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
State v. Krug, supra; (3) the court must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the *180 statute is unconstitutional, , (4) •every intendment must be indulged in favor of the validity of a statute, Shaw v. State, supra; and (5) constitutional provisions shall not be given a construction which will nullify legislation but must be liberally construed.
Nelson v. Planned Parenthood Center of Tucson, Inc. 505 P.2d 580 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Nelson v. Planned Parenthood Center of Tucson, Inc. 505 P.2d 580 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Arizona State Tax Commission v. Lawrence Manufacturing Co. 489 P.2d 860 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Arizona State Tax Commission v. Lawrence Manufacturing Co. 489 P.2d 860 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971