Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite New Times, Inc. v. Arizona Board of Regents, 519 P.2d 169.

52 citing documents.

State v. Campo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
of Regents, (“It is well settled that minor matters of public inconvenience or annoyance cannot be transformed into substantive evils of sufficient weight to warrant the curtailment of liberty of expression by legislative preferences or beliefs.”).
State v. Stummer 194 P.3d 1043 Ariz. 2008
State v. Stummer 194 P.3d 1043 Ariz. 2008
of Regents, (noting that litter control is not sufficiently important to justify abridgment of speech rights).
State v. Stummer 171 P.3d 1229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Stummer 171 P.3d 1229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
We presume a statute constitutional, New Times, Inc., v. *191 Arizona Board of Regents, , and impose on the party challenging the statute the burden of overcoming this presumption.
State v. Olmstead 145 P.3d 631 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State v. Olmstead 145 P.3d 631 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
of Regents, , (citations omitted).
Empress Adult Video & Bookstore v. City of Tucson 59 P.3d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Empress Adult Video & Bookstore v. City of Tucson 59 P.3d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Because we presume a statute is constitutional, New Times, , the burden of overcoming this presumption rests on the party challenging the statute.
State v. Ochoa 943 P.2d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Ochoa 943 P.2d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Moerman 895 P.2d 1018 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Moerman 895 P.2d 1018 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
New Times, , , review denied
Matter of Appeal in Maricopa County 887 P.2d 599 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Matter of Appeal in Maricopa County 887 P.2d 599 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Star Publishing Co. v. Parks 875 P.2d 837 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Star Publishing Co. v. Parks 875 P.2d 837 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Foust 869 P.2d 183 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Foust 869 P.2d 183 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
of Regents, 20 Ariz App. 422,426, vacated on other grounds, , (citing Charles Dowd Box Co. v. Courtney, 368 U.S. 502, 508 , 82 S.Ct.
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
Dano v. Collins 802 P.2d 1021 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Dano v. Collins 802 P.2d 1021 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Wagstaff 794 P.2d 118 Ariz. 1990
Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 773 P.2d 455 Ariz. 1989
Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 773 P.2d 455 Ariz. 1989
On this question, we have held that any restriction on first amendment rights “must be drawn with narrow specificity.” New Times
State v. Poehnelt 722 P.2d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Poehnelt 722 P.2d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
In the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-5209 & No. JS-4963 692 P.2d 1027 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
In the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-5209 & No. JS-4963 692 P.2d 1027 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
State v. Swainston 676 P.2d 1153 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
State v. Swainston 676 P.2d 1153 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
In re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Action No. B-8736 647 P.2d 1181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
In re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Action No. B-8736 647 P.2d 1181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
The burden on one seeking to have a statute declared unconstitutional is a very heavy one, New Times, , and the tribunal should indulge in every intendment to support a law’s constitutionality.
Arizona Downs v. Arizona Horsemen's Foundation 637 P.2d 1053 Ariz. 1981
Arizona Downs v. Arizona Horsemen's Foundation 637 P.2d 1053 Ariz. 1981
New Times, , , appeal dismissed, 381 U.S. 276 , 85 S.Ct.
State v. Garza 623 P.2d 367 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
State v. Garza 623 P.2d 367 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
City of Tucson v. Corbin 623 P.2d 1239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
City of Tucson v. Corbin 623 P.2d 1239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Despite the presumption in favor of the constitutionality of a legislative enactment and our duty to view any attack in favor of the validity of the statute, New Times, , we are constrained to hold that the provisions of our slum clearance and redevelopment law which authorize tax increment financing in its current form are unconstitutional as violative of Ariz.Const.
Litchfield Elementary School District No. 79 v. Babbitt 608 P.2d 792 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Litchfield Elementary School District No. 79 v. Babbitt 608 P.2d 792 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
New Times, Inc, v. Arizona Board of Regents
State v. O'NEILL 572 P.2d 1181 Ariz. 1977
State v. O'NEILL 572 P.2d 1181 Ariz. 1977
McClanahan v. Cochise College 540 P.2d 744 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
McClanahan v. Cochise College 540 P.2d 744 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Perry v. Apache Junction Elementary School District No. 43, supra.
Rochlin v. State 540 P.2d 643 Ariz. 1975
Rochlin v. State 540 P.2d 643 Ariz. 1975
Roe v. Arizona Board of Regents 534 P.2d 285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Roe v. Arizona Board of Regents 534 P.2d 285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the LTnited States or other per *481 son within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.” (Emphasis added) New Times, , held that a state court has jurisdiction to entertain a claim for damages under this federal statute.