Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Lerma v. Keck, 921 P.2d 28.

29 citing documents.

Moore v. Moore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Moore v. Moore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
See, –32 (App. 1996) (explaining that a plaintiff that is to suffer threatened or actual injury has standing to make an equal protection argument).
Viniegra v. Town of Parker Municipal Property Corp. 383 P.3d 665 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Viniegra v. Town of Parker Municipal Property Corp. 383 P.3d 665 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
We presume the legislation is rational; such presumption is only overcome by “a clear showing of arbitrariness or irrationality.” (citation omitted).
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
¶9 In sum, the challenger of a statute’s constitutionality may overcome a presumption that the statute is rational “only by a clear showing of arbitrariness or irrationality.” Hammonds, 192 Ariz. at 531, ¶ 9 ().
City of Tucson v. State 250 P.3d 251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Fred Nackard Land Co. v. City of Flagstaff 238 P.3d 149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Fred Nackard Land Co. v. City of Flagstaff 238 P.3d 149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Romero v. Southwest Ambulance, rural/metro, City of Tucson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Romero v. Southwest Ambulance, rural/metro, City of Tucson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
¶11 Romero is correct that a claimant has a fundamental right under the Arizona Constitution “to bring an action to recover damages.” P.2d 28 (App. 1996).
In Re Marxus B. 13 P.3d 290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
In Re Marxus B. 13 P.3d 290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Bonnewell 2 P.3d 682 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Bonnewell 2 P.3d 682 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Bills v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund 984 P.2d 574 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Bills v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund 984 P.2d 574 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
14 Plaintiff does not claim membership in any “suspect class,” but correctly observes that “claimants have a fundamental right to bring and pursue an action for damages.”
State v. Wagner 976 P.2d 250 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Wagner 976 P.2d 250 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Goodman v. Samaritan Health System 990 P.2d 1061 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Goodman v. Samaritan Health System 990 P.2d 1061 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
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
See, , , see also 3 Ronald D. Rotunda and John E. Nowak, Treatise on Constitutional Law § 18.3, n. 5 (2d ed.1992).
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
See Kenyon, 142 Ariz. at 83 , 688 P.2d at 975 (holding “the right to bring and pursue [an] action is a ‘fundamental right’ guaranteed by Article 18, § 6 of the constitution and the [equal protection clause]”); , (“Under the Arizona Constitution, claimants have a fundamental right to bring and pursue an action for damages.”).
State v. Hammonds 968 P.2d 601 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Hammonds 968 P.2d 601 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Rosner v. Denim & Diamonds, Inc. 937 P.2d 353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Rosner v. Denim & Diamonds, Inc. 937 P.2d 353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996