Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Industrial Develop. Auth. of Cty. of Pinal v. Nelson, 509 P.2d 705.

51 citing documents.

Darcie Schires v. Cathy Carlat 480 P.3d 639 Ariz. 2021
Darcie Schires v. Cathy Carlat 480 P.3d 639 Ariz. 2021
Stuart v. Scottsdale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Stuart v. Scottsdale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Schires v. Carlat Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Schires v. Carlat Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
v. Nelson, (rejecting Gift Clause attack on public agency’s issuance of industrial development bonds); 6 SCHIRES, et al. v. CARLAT, et al. Decision of the Court (findin
Turken v. Gordon 224 P.3d 158 Ariz. 2010
Turken v. Gordon 224 P.3d 158 Ariz. 2010
of 10 Pinal County v. Nelson, 109 Ariz. 368, (rejecting Gift Clause attack on issuance of industrial development bonds by public agency); Town of Gila Bend v. Walled Lake Door Co., 107 Ariz. 545, (finding public purpose
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
(holding that revenue bonds sold to fund pollution control facilities were for the public purpose of protecting the health of citizens by preventing or limiting air, water, and other forms of pollution); Walled Lake Door Co., 107 Ariz. at 550 , 490 P.2d at 556 (holding that supplying wa
Cain v. Horne 183 P.3d 1269 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Cain v. Horne 183 P.3d 1269 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Hohokam Irrigation & Drainage District v. Arizona Public Service Co. 35 P.3d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Hohokam Irrigation & Drainage District v. Arizona Public Service Co. 35 P.3d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Indeed, -75 , -12 (1973): Section 7 of Article XIII was added as an amendment to the Constitution of this State in 1940 , which held that the property of irrigation districts and other types of district
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
Airness & Accountability in Insurance Reform v. Greene 886 P.2d 1338 Ariz. 1994
FAIRNESS & ACCT. IN INS. REFORM v. Greene 886 P.2d 1338 Ariz. 1994
FAIRNESS & ACCT. IN INS. REFORM v. Greene 886 P.2d 1338 Ariz. 1994
v. Nelson, , , Walker, 67 Ariz. at 162 , 192 P.2d at 726-27 .
McClead v. Pima County 849 P.2d 1378 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
McClead v. Pima County 849 P.2d 1378 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
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
: “The constitutional provision was designed to enable the legislator upon reading the title to be advised as to what to expect in the body of the act so that he would not be surprised and enact something he did not intend.
State ex rel. Corbin v. Superior Court 767 P.2d 30 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
State ex rel. Corbin v. Superior Court 767 P.2d 30 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
for example, the attorney general challenged the legislation that authorized industrial development bond financing on grounds that it violated several pro *310 visions of the Arizona Constitution, including article 9, § 7, which provides: “Neither the State, nor any county, city, town, municipal
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Goodrich 726 P.2d 215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Goodrich 726 P.2d 215 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Mountain States Legal Foundation v. Apache County 706 P.2d 1246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Mountain States Legal Foundation v. Apache County 706 P.2d 1246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Wistuber v. Paradise Valley Unified School District 687 P.2d 354 Ariz. 1984
Wistuber v. Paradise Valley Unified School District 687 P.2d 354 Ariz. 1984
4 The constitutional prohibition was intended to prevent governmental bodies from depleting the public treasury by giving advantages to special interests ( , ) or by engaging in non-public enterprises.
American Estate Life Insurance v. State 568 P.2d 1138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
American Estate Life Insurance v. State 568 P.2d 1138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Sutton 565 P.2d 1278 Ariz. 1977
State v. Sutton 565 P.2d 1278 Ariz. 1977
Mardian Construction Co. v. Superior Court 557 P.2d 526 Ariz. 1976
Mardian Construction Co. v. Superior Court 557 P.2d 526 Ariz. 1976
State v. Sutton 551 P.2d 583 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Sutton 551 P.2d 583 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
White v. *137 Kaibab Road Improvement District, Ariz.
White v. Kaibab Road Improvement District 550 P.2d 80 Ariz. 1976
White v. Kaibab Road Improvement District 550 P.2d 80 Ariz. 1976
State Compensation Fund v. Harris 545 P.2d 971 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State Compensation Fund v. Harris 545 P.2d 971 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Coleman v. The Industrial Commission of Arizona, 14 Ariz.App.
Rochlin v. State 540 P.2d 643 Ariz. 1975
Rochlin v. State 540 P.2d 643 Ariz. 1975
City of Tempe v. Pilot Properties, Inc. 527 P.2d 515 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
City of Tempe v. Pilot Properties, Inc. 527 P.2d 515 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
the court discusses the “public purpose” involved in allowing a political subdivision to issue revenue bonds for the financing and construction of pollution control facilities for private industry, the repayment of which would not be a charge against the public treasury.
City of Phoenix v. Butler 515 P.2d 1180 Ariz. 1973