Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Harold, 246 P.2d 178.

50 citing documents.

CENTER FOR AZ v. AZ SECRETARY OF STATE Ariz. 2026
1911) (recognizing the territory’s police power); (“[S]o long as the [L]egislature enacts laws reasonably necessary for the preservation of the public health, safety, morals or general welfare of the public it is acting within the police power of the state.”); Am.
Worker Power v. Glendale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Worker Power v. Glendale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
See Lewkowitz, 70 Ariz. at 331-32; (It is unnecessary to include the act’s penalties in the title.); -74 (1953) (same).
Arizona School Boards Assoc v. State Ariz. 2022
Arizona School Boards Assoc v. State Ariz. 2022
To satisfy this requirement, the “title must be worded so that it puts people on notice as to the contents of the act,” but the “title to an act need not be a complete index to its contents,” –15 (1952).
Johnson Utilities LLC v. Arizona Corporation Ariz. 2020
Johnson Utilities LLC v. Arizona Corporation Ariz. 2020
er inherent in the legislative authority, the paramount power to make all rules and regulations governing PSCs not specifically and expressly given to the[C]ommission by some provision of the constitution, rests in the legislature”); see Ariz. Const. art. 14, § 2 (stating that all corporations doing business in Arizona may “be regulated, limited, and restrained by law”); –16 (1952) (holding that the legislature has a duty to exercise its police power to enact laws “reasonably necessary for the p
T.P. Racing, L.L.L.P. v. Arizona Department of Racing 222 P.3d 280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
T.P. Racing, L.L.L.P. v. Arizona Department of Racing 222 P.3d 280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
e " ‘title to an act need not be a complete index to its contents,’ and a provision need only ‘directly or indirectly relate [] to the subject of the title and hav[e] a natural connection therewith’ or be ‘germane to the subject expressed in the title’ to be constitutional.” ¶ 21 , (alterations in original) (-15 , ).
State v. Dixon 622 P.2d 501 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
State v. Dixon 622 P.2d 501 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Pamela Manic v. Tucson City Attorney's Office Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Pamela Manic v. Tucson City Attorney's Office Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Simat Corp. v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System 56 P.3d 28 Ariz. 2002
Estate of Hernandez v. Arizona Board of Regents 838 P.2d 1283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Estate of Hernandez v. Arizona Board of Regents 838 P.2d 1283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
A provision in an act “which directly or indirectly relates to the subject of the title and ha[s] a natural connection therewith is properly included in the body of the act.”
Fund Manager v. Corbin 778 P.2d 1244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Fund Manager v. Corbin 778 P.2d 1244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
: “[A] provision in the act which directly or indirectly relates to the subject of the title and having a natural connection therewith is properly included in the body of the act.
Allen v. Girard 745 P.2d 192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Allen v. Girard 745 P.2d 192 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Shaw v. State, 8 Ariz.App.
State v. SUPER. CT., GREENLEE COUNTY 735 P.2d 149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
State v. SUPER. CT., GREENLEE COUNTY 735 P.2d 149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
quoted in State v. Webb, the court said: It appears to us to be even more important for the legislature to prevent operators of cars who are under the influence of intoxicating liquors ...
State v. Waicelunas 672 P.2d 968 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Waicelunas 672 P.2d 968 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Parker 666 P.2d 1083 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Parker 666 P.2d 1083 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
(declaring the legislative presumptions constitutional).
State v. Burns 591 P.2d 563 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
State v. Burns 591 P.2d 563 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Campbell v. Superior Court; State v. Ha *474 rold
White v. Kaibab Road Improvement District 537 P.2d 986 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
White v. Kaibab Road Improvement District 537 P.2d 986 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Campbell v. Superior Court 479 P.2d 685 Ariz. 1971
Campbell v. Superior Court 479 P.2d 685 Ariz. 1971
where we said: “The advent of millions of automobiles upon the highways of the state and nation in recent years and the rapidly increasing death toll that is being taken as a result of their operations thereon has made it mandatory that regulatory measures be taken to remove insofar as possible
Selective Life Insurance v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of United States 412 P.2d 731 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Selective Life Insurance v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of United States 412 P.2d 731 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
State v. Harold, 1952, , .” State ex rel.
Turner v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN AND FOR COUNTY FOR PIMA 415 P.2d 129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Turner v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN AND FOR COUNTY FOR PIMA 415 P.2d 129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Atchison, Topeka & , 265 P. 602 , 58 A.L.R.
State v. Jones 385 P.2d 1019 Ariz. 1963
State v. Jones 385 P.2d 1019 Ariz. 1963
State Ex Rel. Morrison v. Nabours 286 P.2d 752 Ariz. 1955
State Ex Rel. Morrison v. Nabours 286 P.2d 752 Ariz. 1955
State v. Harold, 1952, , .
State v. Childress 274 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1954
State v. Webb 274 P.2d 338 Ariz. 1954
State v. Childress 274 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1954
State v. Webb 274 P.2d 338 Ariz. 1954
wherein we said: “ * * * It appears to us to be even more important for the legislature to prevent operators of cars who are under the influence of intoxicating liquors or who are at the time driving recklessly and in wilful and wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property, from enterin
Hudson v. Kelly 263 P.2d 362 Ariz. 1953
Hudson v. Kelly 263 P.2d 362 Ariz. 1953
s validity, and the conflict between the legislative act and a constitutional provision must be very clear and utterly irreconcilable by any reasonable interpretation before this court would be called upon to annul the act or any separable part of it.” , 181 P. 186 ; , 232 P. 884, 885 ; , 246 P.Zd 178; , , 171 A.L.R.
State v. Gastelum 255 P.2d 203 Ariz. 1953
State v. Gastelum 255 P.2d 203 Ariz. 1953
d only as to so much thereof as shall not be embraced in the title.” The title of the Arizona Uniform Narcotics Act of 1935 reads as follows: “An act relating to narcotic drugs, and to make uniform the law with reference thereto.” The above provision of the constitution has been considered by us in a number of cases, , 181 P. 186 , , , and we have said that we would not declare a legislative act unconstitutional unless satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of its unconstitutionality, , 232 P. 884
State v. Warren 252 P.2d 781 Ariz. 1953
State v. Warren 252 P.2d 781 Ariz. 1953
that the act in question is constitutional and it is not necessary to go into that matter again.