Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State Ex Rel. Berger v. SUP. COURT IN & FOR CTY. OF MARICOPA, 513 P.2d 935.

18 citing documents.

Matthew Wakely v. Todd Howard Ariz. 2022
They were rejected in a well-considered analysis as follows: P.2d 935 (1973), persuasive and dispositive.
State of Arizona v. City of Tucson Ariz. 2021
BRNOVICH V. CITY OF TUCSON Opinion of the Court ¶22 the Court addressed whether the Tucson charter’s one-year residency requirement for councilmember candidates was limited by a state statute enacted after the charter that imposed a less restrictive residency requirement.
Escamilla v. cuello/cabrera 282 P.3d 403 Ariz. 2012
Triano v. Massion, 109 Ariz. 506, 508, see Sugarman v. Dougall, 413 U.S. 634, 647 (1973) (stating that “‘[e]ach State has the power to prescribe the qualifications of its officers and the manner in which they shall be chosen’” and that this power goes “to the heart of representative government”
City of Tucson v. State 273 P.3d 624 Ariz. 2012
City of Tucson v. State 250 P.3d 251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
("Municipal elections are matters of local interest and not matters of statewide concern.").
City of Tucson v. Consumers for Retail Choice 5 P.2d 934 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Strode, 72 Ariz. at 367-68 , 236 P.2d at 53-54 .
State v. Noriega 690 P.2d 775 Ariz. 1984
State v. Noriega 690 P.2d 775 Ariz. 1984
Bearup v. Voss 690 P.2d 790 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
We find the Supreme Court’s , persuasive and dispositive.
State v. Emery 642 P.2d 838 Ariz. 1982
State v. Emery 642 P.2d 838 Ariz. 1982
State v. Greenawalt 624 P.2d 828 Ariz. 1981
State v. Greenawalt 624 P.2d 828 Ariz. 1981
State v. McGinty 584 P.2d 1153 Ariz. 1978
State v. McGinty 584 P.2d 1153 Ariz. 1978
State v. Jenkins 522 P.2d 1090 Ariz. 1974
State v. Pineda 519 P.2d 41 Ariz. 1974
State v. Pineda 519 P.2d 41 Ariz. 1974