Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest v. Hassell, 837 P.2d 158.

46 citing documents.

Neptune Swimming Foundation v. City of Scottsdale Ariz. 2024
Neptune Swimming Foundation v. City of Scottsdale Ariz. 2024
v. Hassell, (“The framers did not restrict their prohibition [in the Gift Clause] to the grant of public money.”).
Dow v. Az Nsac Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Dow v. Az Nsac Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
v. Hassell, n.10 (App. 1991)).
Arizona School Boards Assoc v. State Ariz. 2022
Arizona School Boards Assoc v. State Ariz. 2022
(awarding fees to private litigants successfully contesting the constitutionality of legislation).
State v. Series Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Series Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Walter Ansley v. Banner Health Network 459 P.3d 55 Ariz. 2020
Walter Ansley v. Banner Health Network 459 P.3d 55 Ariz. 2020
Schires v. Carlat Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Schires v. Carlat Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Meyer v. State 436 P.3d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Meyer v. State 436 P.3d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Hall v. Elected Officials' Retirement Plan 383 P.3d 1107 Ariz. 2016
Hall v. Elected Officials' Retirement Plan 383 P.3d 1107 Ariz. 2016
-72 , -74 (App. 1991) (allowing judgment to run against intervenor-defendants and awarding plaintiffs attorneys’ fees against defendants and intervenor-defen-dants under the private attorney general doctrine); McKesson Chem.
cheatham/huey v. Plea Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Cheatham v. Diciccio 356 P.3d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Cheatham v. Diciccio 356 P.3d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
366 , 168 (App. 1991) (interest in riverbed land); , (same); Kromko v. Ariz. Bd.
cheatham/huey v. Plea Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
366, 168 (App. 1991) (interest in riverbed land); (same); Kromko v. Ariz. Bd.
Cave Creek Unified School District v. Ducey 295 P.3d 440 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Cave Creek Unified School District v. Ducey 295 P.3d 440 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
(stating that when vindication of a right directly challenges a statutory enactment, the right can only be privately enforced).
City of Tucson v. State 250 P.3d 251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
City of Tucson v. State 250 P.3d 251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State v. Arizona Navigable Stream Adjudication Commission 229 P.3d 242 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Arizona Navigable Stream Adjudication Commission 229 P.3d 242 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
A Tumbling-T Ranches v. Flood Control District 217 P.3d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
A Tumbling-T Ranches v. Flood Control District 217 P.3d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
(citing Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. (3 How.)
Turken v. Gordon 207 P.3d 709 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Turken v. Gordon 207 P.3d 709 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Defenders of Wildlife v. Hull 18 P.3d 722 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Defenders of Wildlife v. Hull 18 P.3d 722 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
San Carlos Apache Tribe v. Superior Court 972 P.2d 179 Ariz. 1999
San Carlos Apache Tribe v. Superior Court 972 P.2d 179 Ariz. 1999
-66 , -68 (App. 1991) (applying both the separation of powers doctrine and the gift clause, article 9, section 7 of the Arizona Constitution).
City of Tucson v. State 957 P.2d 341 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
City of Tucson v. State 957 P.2d 341 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Pimalco, Inc. v. Maricopa County 937 P.2d 1198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Pimalco, Inc. v. Maricopa County 937 P.2d 1198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Maricopa County v. State 928 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Maricopa County v. State 928 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
of Regents, -21 , -80 (1986)
Reisch v. M & D TERMINALS, INC. 884 P.2d 242 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Reisch v. M & D TERMINALS, INC. 884 P.2d 242 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Kadish v. Arizona State Land Department 868 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Kadish v. Arizona State Land Department 868 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
The second reason for our rejection of appellees’ argument is that since the argument was made below and in appellees’ brief on appeal
Tucson Unified School District v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. 849 P.2d 790 Ariz. 1993
Tucson Unified School District v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. 849 P.2d 790 Ariz. 1993
Section 12-529 , petitions for review dismissed on stipulation of the parties October 6, 1992.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by