Cited by

v. Woodall, see also Mills, 253 Ariz. at 423–24 ¶ 25.

(internal citation omitted).

¶17 aff’d in part, rev’d in part, to contend the board of supervisors “is given direct power to supervise all officers of the county and its subdivisions.” In Woodall, this court addressed whether a board of supervisors could retain counsel other than its county attorney to provide legal advice.

v. Woodall, (stating that a declaratory judgment action must involve a “justiciable controversy,” which arises when there is “an actual controversy ripe for adjudication” and the parties have “a real interest in the questions to be resolved”).

v. Woodall, 120 Ariz. 379, 382, (holding that a board of supervisors lacks ability to retain outside counsel to perform a county attorney’s duties unless the county attorney refuses to 5 Our court of appeals, relying on A.R.S.

-82 , -31 (1978) (emphasis added).

(concluding justiciable controversy requires existence of parties with “a real interest in the questions to be resolved”).

(holding Board may not hire independent counsel for purposes of obtaining legal advice if County Attorney available to provide counsel, but can engage independent counsel for purpose *53 of prosecuting and defending legal actions to which county is a party).

affirmed in part, reversed in part on other grounds, , Arizona State Bd.