Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Arizona Mines Supply Co., 484 P.2d 619.

34 citing documents.

Torres v. Jai Dining Services Ariz. 2023
Torres v. Jai Dining Services Ariz. 2023
¶ 9 (2007) (“Under the Arizona Constitution, the legislature possesses those powers ‘not expressly prohibited or granted to another branch of government.’” ()); (observing that the legislature exercises the state’s police power).
Harold Vangilder v. ador/pinal County Ariz. 2022
Harold Vangilder v. ador/pinal County Ariz. 2022
(discussing nature and scope of legislature’s delegation of authority).
Cleckner v. Adhs 433 P.3d 1200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Cleckner v. Adhs 433 P.3d 1200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Comm'n v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 209 (1947) (administrative agencies are "best equipped to make" decisions that require "administrative experience, appreciation of the complexities of the problem, realization of the statutory policies, and responsible treatment of the uncontested facts"); ("[D]ue to the complexity of our social and industrial activities, [courts have upheld] the authority conferred upon commissions and boards to formulate rules and regulations and to determine the state of
State v. Valentine Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Valentine Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
("an information is sufficient .
Cook v. State 281 P.3d 1053 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Cook v. State 281 P.3d 1053 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Although “[u]nder the doctrine of ‘separation of powers’ the legislature alone possesses the lawmaking power and while it cannot completely delegate this power to any other body, it may allow another body to fill in the details of legislation already enacted.”
State v. Slayton 154 P.3d 1057 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Slayton 154 P.3d 1057 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
ding the offense of possession of heroin required no showing of mens rea); (holding that a statute prohibiting leaving the scene of an accident was a strict liability crime); State v. Mertens, 148 Wash.2d 820 , (providing that fishing without a license was a strict liability regulatory offense); , (finding that conviction for air pollution did not require a showing of intent); , 154 P. 1048, 1048 (1916) (holding a defendant who sold alcoholic beverage did not need to know that the beverage was a
Griffith Energy, L.L.C. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 108 P.3d 282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Griffith Energy, L.L.C. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 108 P.3d 282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Although the legislature cannot delegate the authority to enact laws to a government agency, it can allow the agency “to fill in the details of legislation already enacted.” , see also Lewis v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
Hibbs v. Chandler Ginning Co. 790 P.2d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Hibbs v. Chandler Ginning Co. 790 P.2d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Central Citrus Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 760 P.2d 562 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Central Citrus Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 760 P.2d 562 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
State v. Williams 583 P.2d 251 Ariz. 1978
State v. Williams 583 P.2d 251 Ariz. 1978
While we continue to be guided by the principle that the Legislature may not completely delegate its law making power to another governmental agency, , the increasing trend in the cases to uphold certain adequately circumscribed delegations of power.
Cohen v. State 588 P.2d 313 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Cohen v. State 588 P.2d 313 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Longbridge Investment Company v. Moore 533 P.2d 564 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Longbridge Investment Company v. Moore 533 P.2d 564 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
It is not necessary to set forth the legislative authority in express terms; it is the law of this state that an agency may promulgate regulations which may be reasonably implied from “a consideration of the statutory scheme as a whole.”
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
sets forth a complete statement on the subject of delegation of powers.
Dixon v. Osman 528 P.2d 181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Dixon v. Osman 528 P.2d 181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
State v. Kelsall 523 P.2d 1334 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
State v. Kelsall 523 P.2d 1334 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
State Board of Health v. Apache Powder Co. 517 P.2d 114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State Board of Health v. Apache Powder Co. 517 P.2d 114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Burns v. Herberger 498 P.2d 536 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Burns v. Herberger 498 P.2d 536 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972