Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Arizona Minority Coalition for Fair Redistricting v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Co…, 121 P.3d 843.

41 citing documents.

Knight v. Fontes Ariz. 2025
Knight v. Fontes Ariz. 2025
Redistricting Comm’n, –46 ¶ 23 (App. 2005), an equal protection case).
Conway v. Arizona Independent Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Conway v. Arizona Independent Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Redistricting Comm’n (Redistricting II), ¶ 17 (App. 2005).
Bradley v. Hon yost/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Bradley v. Hon yost/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Redistricting Comm’n, –54, ¶ 57–58 (App. 2005) (similar).
State of Arizona v. City of Tucson Ariz. 2021
State of Arizona v. City of Tucson Ariz. 2021
BRNOVICH V. CITY OF TUCSON Opinion of the Court -46 ¶ 23 (App. 2005) (quoting San Antonio Indep.
Sun City v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Sun City v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Redistricting Comm’n, ¶ 18 (App. 2005) (quoting Green v. City of Tucson, 340 F.3d 891, 896 (9th Cir. 2003)).
Biggs v. cooper/brewer 323 P.3d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Biggs v. cooper/brewer 323 P.3d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Redistricting Comm’n, ¶ 14, (noting de novo review of a trial court’s constitutional interpretation).
Para v. Anderson 290 P.3d 1214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Para v. Anderson 290 P.3d 1214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
See Ariz. Minority Coalition for Fair Redistricting v. Ariz. Independent Redistricting Comm’n (“Redistricting II”), ¶¶ 83-85
Tumacacori Mission Land Development, Ltd. v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Tumacacori Mission Land Development, Ltd. v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Redistricting Comm’n, (only when constitutional provision unclear do “we consider its effect, consequences, context, and spirit”).
VERMA v. Stuhr 221 P.3d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
VERMA v. Stuhr 221 P.3d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Redistricting Comm’n, ¶ 58 , ¶ 10
Chavez v. Brewer 214 P.3d 397 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Chavez v. Brewer 214 P.3d 397 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Redistricting Comm’n, , 345 n. 10, , 851 n. 10 (App.2005).
Arizona Minority Coalition for Fair Redistricting v. Redistricting Com'n Arizona Independent 208 P.3d 676 Ariz. 2009
Arizona Minority Coalition for Fair Redistricting v. Redistricting Com'n Arizona Independent 208 P.3d 676 Ariz. 2009
Redistricting Comm’n (Redistricting I), , 343 ¶10
Ariz. Minority Coalition v. Indep. Redist. Comm'n 192 P.3d 409 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Ariz. Minority Coalition v. Indep. Redist. Comm'n 192 P.3d 409 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Redistricting Comm'n (Redistricting I), ¶ 1
Cain v. Horne 183 P.3d 1269 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Cain v. Horne 183 P.3d 1269 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Re- *305 dist’g Comm’n, , and we “give meaning to each word, phrase, clause, and sentence of the provision so that no part will be void, inert, redundant, or trivial,”
Arizona Minority Coalition for Fair Redistricting v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission 192 P.3d 409 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Arizona Minority Coalition for Fair Redistricting v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission 192 P.3d 409 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Redistricting Comrn’n (Redistricting I), ¶ 1
Phoenix New Times, L.L.C. v. Arpaio 177 P.3d 275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Phoenix New Times, L.L.C. v. Arpaio 177 P.3d 275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Redistricting Comm’n, ¶ 12 , we also vacate the superior court’s observation that the denial was not in bad faith so that upon remand the superior court can make that determination applying the correct legal standard.
In Re Tiffany O. 174 P.3d 282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Kaman Aerospace Corp. v. Arizona Board of Regents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Kaman Aerospace Corp. v. Arizona Board of Regents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Redistricting Comm’n, n.28, n.28 (App. 2005).
Yarbrough v. Montoya-Paez 147 P.3d 755 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Yarbrough v. Montoya-Paez 147 P.3d 755 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF HEALTH v. Gottsfield 146 P.3d 574 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF HEALTH v. Gottsfield 146 P.3d 574 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Redistricting Comm'n, ¶ 82 , (stating that a trial court has broad discretion in ruling on discovery and disclosure matters, and this court will not disturb its ruling absent an abuse of discretion).
Green v. Green Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Green v. Green Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Redistricting Comm’n, 211 Ariz. 337, ¶ 83
Slade v. Schneider 129 P.3d 465 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Slade v. Schneider 129 P.3d 465 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Redistricting Comm’n, ¶83 , (citation omitted).