Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Eastin v. Broomfield, 570 P.2d 744.

170 citing documents.

State v. Tocco 750 P.2d 868 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
James v. Phoenix General Hospital, Inc. 744 P.2d 695 Ariz. 1987
James v. Phoenix General Hospital, Inc. 744 P.2d 695 Ariz. 1987
Barrett v. Samaritan Health Services, Inc. 735 P.2d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Barrett v. Samaritan Health Services, Inc. 735 P.2d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Lapare v. Industrial Com'n of Ariz. 742 P.2d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Lapare v. Industrial Com'n of Ariz. 742 P.2d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Toto v. Industrial Comm’n
Boswell v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 730 P.2d 186 Ariz. 1986
Boswell v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 730 P.2d 186 Ariz. 1986
-85 , -53 (1977) (collateral source rule).
Barsema v. Susong 751 P.2d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Barsema v. Susong 751 P.2d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
In contrast, a general law is one “that confers rights and privileges or imposes restrictions on all persons of a given class where the classification has a basis in reason.” State v. Loughran, supra, at 347 , 693 P.2d at 1002
Sahf v. Lake Havasu City Ass'n for the Retarded & Handicapped 721 P.2d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Sahf v. Lake Havasu City Ass'n for the Retarded & Handicapped 721 P.2d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Borja v. Phoenix General Hospital, Inc. 727 P.2d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Borja v. Phoenix General Hospital, Inc. 727 P.2d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
That provision, as originally enacted, has already been upheld by this state’s
State v. Christi 718 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Christi 718 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Toto v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 698 P.2d 753 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Toto v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 698 P.2d 753 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
We note that “there is a strong presumption supporting the constitutionality of a legislative enactment and the party asserting its unconstitutionality bears the burden of overcoming the presumptions.” , , Baseline Liquors v. Circle *511 K Corporation
State v. Loughran 693 P.2d 1000 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
State v. Loughran 693 P.2d 1000 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
citing Jones v. State Board of Medicine, 97 Idaho 859
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
Kenyon v. Hammer 688 P.2d 961 Ariz. 1984
Kenyon v. Hammer 688 P.2d 961 Ariz. 1984
Daou v. Harris 678 P.2d 934 Ariz. 1984
Daou v. Harris 678 P.2d 934 Ariz. 1984
Phoenix Gen. Hosp. v. Super. Ct. of Maricopa 675 P.2d 1323 Ariz. 1984
Phoenix General Hospital v. Superior Court 675 P.2d 1323 Ariz. 1984
Phoenix Gen. Hosp. v. Super. Ct. of Maricopa 675 P.2d 1323 Ariz. 1984
we upheld these provisions of the malpractice act against an attack based, inter alia, on the argument that the statutory requirements were offensive to art. 6, § 1 of the Arizona Constitution, which vests judicial power in the court system.
Phoenix General Hospital v. Superior Court 675 P.2d 1323 Ariz. 1984
we upheld these provisions of the malpractice act against an attack based, inter alia, on the argument that the statutory requirements were offensive to art. 6, § 1 of the Arizona Constitution, which vests judicial power in the court system.
Lake Havasu City v. Mohave County 675 P.2d 1371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Lake Havasu City v. Mohave County 675 P.2d 1371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Baseline Liquors v. Circle K Corp., supra
Barrio v. San Manuel Division Hospital for Magma Copper Co. 692 P.2d 290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Barrio v. San Manuel Division Hospital for Magma Copper Co. 692 P.2d 290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
(rational basis test is appropriate standard to review a claim that requiring the submission of claims to a *115 medical liability review panél and the abolition of the collateral source rule were unconstitutional); Landgraff v. Wagner, supra, (rational basis test is the appropriate standard by
Daou v. Harris 678 P.2d 949 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Daou v. Harris 678 P.2d 949 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
DeBoer v. Brown 673 P.2d 922 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
DeBoer v. Brown 673 P.2d 922 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Trujillo v. Superior Court of Pima County 656 P.2d 644 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Trujillo v. Superior Court of Pima County 656 P.2d 644 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
dgment a bond in an amount fixed and approved by the court, with sureties to be approved by the justice of the peace, payable to the clerk of the superior court and conditioned that he will prosecute the appeal to effect and will pay the rental value of the premises pending the appeal and all costs, damages and rent which may be adjudged against him.” , , to support her position that refusal to waive this bond requirement violates the state constitution.
Chevron Chemical Co. v. Superior Court 641 P.2d 1275 Ariz. 1982
Chevron Chemical Co. v. Superior Court 641 P.2d 1275 Ariz. 1982
is dispositive of this position: “A law is ‘general’ if it confers rights and privileges or imposes restrictions upon all persons of a given class, (citation omitted) This court has defined a ‘general’ law as follows: ‘Laws operating uniformly upon all of a class, when the classification has a *4
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
1101 , 6 L.Ed.2d 393 (1961)
Tahtinen v. Superior Court, Pinal County 637 P.2d 723 Ariz. 1981
Tahtinen v. Superior Court, Pinal County 637 P.2d 723 Ariz. 1981
to support their contention that refusal to waive their filing fees violates our state constitution.
Baseline Liquors v. Circle K Corp. 630 P.2d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Baseline Liquors v. Circle K Corp. 630 P.2d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Landgraff v. Wagner, 26 Ariz.App.
State Ex Rel. Hyder v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 624 P.2d 1264 Ariz. 1981

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by