DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Church v. Rawson Drug & Sundry Co., 842 P.2d 1355.

70 citing documents.

  • Torres v. Jai Dining Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Torres v. Jai Dining Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    See Church v. Rawson Drug & Sundry Co., -46 (App. 1992).
  • Doty-Perez v. Doty-Perez 426 P.3d 1208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Doty-Perez v. Doty-Perez 426 P.3d 1208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    See Kenyon , 142 Ariz. at 78 , 688 P.2d at 970 ; see also Church v. Rawson Drug & Sundry Co. , , 350, , 1363 (App. 1992) ("In considering whether a statute rationally advances a legitimate goal, a court can consider 'either the actual basis on which the legislature acted or any hypothetical basis on which it might have acted.'
  • Loncar v. Ducey 422 P.3d 1059 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Loncar v. Ducey 422 P.3d 1059 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    Church v. Rawson Drug & Sundry Co. , , 349, , 1362 (App. 1992).
  • State v. Panos 366 P.3d 1006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Panos 366 P.3d 1006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Thus, “[e]ven if the classification results in some inequality, it is not unconstitutional if it rests on some reasonable basis.” ¶ 28 (App. 2014) (quoting Church v. Rawson Drug & Sundry Co., ).
  • Fisher v. Edgerton 336 P.3d 167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Fisher v. Edgerton 336 P.3d 167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    “Even if the classification results in some inequality, it is not unconstitutional if it rests on some reasonable basis.” Church v. Rawson Drug & Sundry Co.
  • Vong v. Aune 328 P.3d 1057 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Vong v. Aune 328 P.3d 1057 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    Although conceptually similar, “[t]he due process clause protects liberty and property interests while the equal protection clause protects against discriminatory classifications.” Church v. Rawson Drug & Sundry Co.
  • Lisa K. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 281 P.3d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
  • Lisa K. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 281 P.3d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
    See Church v. Rawson Drug & Sundry Co., (initial question in constitutional challenge to statute whether party has standing to assert claim); (“In order to possess standing to assert a constitutional challenge, an individual must himself have suffe
  • Ryan v. San Francisco Peaks Trucking Co. 262 P.3d 863 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • Ryan v. San Francisco Peaks Trucking Co. 262 P.3d 863 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
    Sys., Inc., ¶¶ 12-13 , Church v. Rawson Drug & Sundry Co., , (“The main principle of comparative negligence is that it is fair to divide damages between the parties who are at fault based on each party’s degree of fault.”); see also AR.S.
  • Governale v. Lieberman 250 P.3d 220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • Governale v. Lieberman 250 P.3d 220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
    Church v. Rawson Drug & Sundry Co.
  • Seisinger v. Siebel 195 P.3d 200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
  • Seisinger v. Siebel 195 P.3d 200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
    *169 (holding that statutory provisions governing the appointment of a master, application of the rules of evidence, and the effect of prior judgments in water rights cases were supplementary provisions that did not "unreasonably limit or hamper” the judiciary’s performance of its duties); Church v. Rawson Drug & Sundry Co., -53 , -66 (App.1992) (holding that statute abolishing joint and several liability did not impinge on the court’s rule-making power because all testimony and exhibits wer
  • Standhardt v. Superior Court 77 P.3d 451 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • Standhardt v. Superior Court 77 P.3d 451 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
    2258 ; Watson, 198 Ariz. at 52-53, ¶ 12 , 6 P.3d at 756-57 ; Church v. Rawson Drug & Sundry Co.
  • Simat Corp. v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System 56 P.3d 28 Ariz. 2002
  • Simat Corp. v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System 56 P.3d 28 Ariz. 2002
  • Hobson v. Mid-Century Insurance 19 P.3d 1241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
  • Hobson v. Mid-Century Insurance 19 P.3d 1241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
    Church v. Rawson Drug & Sundry Co.
  • Eller Media Co. v. City of Tucson 7 P.3d 136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
  • Eller Media Co. v. City of Tucson 7 P.3d 136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
    See Church v. Rawson Drug & Sundry Co., , (law or regulation that does not involve fundamental right or suspect classification subject only to rational basis review); see also Rent-A-Sign v. City of Rockford, 85 Ill.App.3d 453 , 40 Ill.Dec.
  • Wigglesworth v. Mauldin 990 P.2d 26 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • Wigglesworth v. Mauldin 990 P.2d 26 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
    See Church v. Rawson Drug & Sundry Co.
  • Aranda v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 989 P.2d 157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • Aranda v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 989 P.2d 157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
    “Social and economic legislation that does not involve a suspect classification or a fundamental right will be upheld when it is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose.” Church v. Rawson Drug & Sundry Co., , see Lavine v. Milne, 424 U.S. 577 , 584 n. 9, 96 S.Ct.
  • Martin v. Reinstein 987 P.2d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • Martin v. Reinstein 987 P.2d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
    17 See Church v. Rawson Drug & Sundry *313 Co.
  • Duarte v. State 971 P.2d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
  • Duarte v. State 971 P.2d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
    Lerma, 186 Ariz. at 233 , 921 P.2d at 33 , quoting Church v. Rawson Drug & Sundry Co.
  • Larsen v. Nissan Motor Corp. in U.S.A. 978 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
  • Larsen v. Nissan Motor Corp. in U.S.A. 978 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
    § 12-2506 when employer negligently contributes to employee’s injury); , Church v. Rawson Drug & Sundry Co.
  • State v. Lefevre 972 P.2d 1021 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Lefevre 972 P.2d 1021 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
    See Church v. Rawson Drug & Sundry Co.
  • Ramirez v. Health Partners 972 P.2d 658 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
  • Ramirez v. Health Partners 972 P.2d 658 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
    ‘We must presume that the legislation is rational, and such presumption can be overcome only by ‘a clear showing of arbitrariness or irrationality.’ ” Lerma, 186 Ariz. at 233 , 921 P.2d at 33 , quoting Church v. Rawson Drug & Sundry Co.
  • Matter of Estate of Dobert 963 P.2d 327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • Matter of Estate of Dobert 963 P.2d 327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
    To have standing to raise the question, all that is necessary is that the party making the assertion “be confronted with some ‘threatened or actual injury’ from the operation of the statute.” Church v. Rawson Drug & Sundry Co., , ( , cert.
  • State v. Trachtman 947 P.2d 905 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • State v. Trachtman 947 P.2d 905 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
    See Church v. Rawson Drug & Sundry Co., , (initial question in any constitutional challenge to a statute is whether the party has standing to assert the claim).
  • In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JD-6123 956 P.2d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JD-6123 956 P.2d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
    Church v. Rawson Drug & Sundry Co., , (A statute abolishing joint and several liability did not violate the equal protection rights of the injured plaintiffs.).
  • Yslava v. Hughes Aircraft Co. 936 P.2d 1274 Ariz. 1997
  • Yslava v. Hughes Aircraft Co. 936 P.2d 1274 Ariz. 1997
    See Church v. Rawson Drug & Sundry Co., , (“[t]here is no legislative history relating to [the section 12-2506(D) ] exceptions----”).