Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Krug, 393 P.2d 916.

40 citing documents.

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
Franzi v. Superior Court of Arizona 679 P.2d 1043 Ariz. 1984
Franzi v. Superior Court of Arizona 679 P.2d 1043 Ariz. 1984
(construing former statute).
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. Hamilton v. Superior Court 624 P.2d 862 Ariz. 1981
State Ex Rel. Hamilton v. Superior Court 624 P.2d 862 Ariz. 1981
There is still a presumption, however, in favor of the constitutionality of a statute, and “The burden rests upon one assailing the validity of a statute to establish that it infringes a constitutional guarantee or violates some constitutional principle.”
Eastin v. Broomfield 570 P.2d 744 Ariz. 1977
Eastin v. Broomfield 570 P.2d 744 Ariz. 1977
Landgraff v. Wagner, 26 Ariz.App.
Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. ARIZ. INS. GUAR. ASS'N 528 P.2d 839 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. ARIZ. INS. GUAR. ASS'N 528 P.2d 839 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
New Times, Inc. v. Arizona Board of Regents 519 P.2d 169 Ariz. 1974
New Times, Inc. v. Arizona Board of Regents 519 P.2d 169 Ariz. 1974
In testing the constitutionality of an ordinance we are bound to follow the following rules: (1) There is a presumption in favor of the constitutionality of a legislative enactment, , (2) the person assailing the validity of a statute or ordinance has the burden of establishing that it infringes upon a constitutional guarantee or violates a constitutional principle.
City of Phoenix v. Butler 515 P.2d 1180 Ariz. 1973
City of Phoenix v. Butler 515 P.2d 1180 Ariz. 1973
State v. Sanner Contracting Co. 514 P.2d 443 Ariz. 1973
State v. Sanner Contracting Co. 514 P.2d 443 Ariz. 1973
(2) the burden rests on the one challenging the validity of a statute to establish that it infringes upon a constitutional guarantee or violates some constitutional principle.
Industrial Develop. Auth. of Cty. of Pinal v. Nelson 509 P.2d 705 Ariz. 1973
Industrial Develop. Auth. of Cty. of Pinal v. Nelson 509 P.2d 705 Ariz. 1973
Yauch v. State 505 P.2d 1066 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Yauch v. State 505 P.2d 1066 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
In testing the constitutionality of the ordinances in question, we apply the following rules: (1) There is a presumption in favor of the constitutionality of a legislative enactment, , (2) the person assailing the validity of a statute or ordinance has the burden of establishing that it infringes a constitutional guarantee or violates a constitutional principle.
Nelson v. Planned Parenthood Center of Tucson, Inc. 505 P.2d 580 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Nelson v. Planned Parenthood Center of Tucson, Inc. 505 P.2d 580 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
and that one assailing the validity of a statute has the burden of establishing that it infringes a constitutional guarantee or violates a constitutional principle.
Yetman v. Naumann 492 P.2d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Yetman v. Naumann 492 P.2d 1252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
State v. Scofield, 7 Ariz.App.
Shenfield v. City Court of City of Tucson, Pima County 443 P.2d 443 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Shenfield v. City Court of City of Tucson, Pima County 443 P.2d 443 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State v. Scofield, 7 Ariz.App.
State v. Scofield 438 P.2d 776 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State v. Scofield 438 P.2d 776 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
In evaluating constitutionality: “It is our duty to uphold an act if, on any reasonable theory, a construction may be given thereto which would make it constitutional.”
State v. Cutshaw 437 P.2d 962 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State v. Cutshaw 437 P.2d 962 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State v. Berry 419 P.2d 337 Ariz. 1966
State v. Berry 419 P.2d 337 Ariz. 1966
Drachman v. Jay 417 P.2d 704 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Drachman v. Jay 417 P.2d 704 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Selective Life Insurance v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of United States 412 P.2d 731 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Selective Life Insurance v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of United States 412 P.2d 731 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
And: “It is well settled in Arizona that there is a presumption in favor of the constitutionality of a legislative enactment.” at 228 , at 918 (1964).
Application of Gault 407 P.2d 760 Ariz. 1965
Application of Gault 407 P.2d 760 Ariz. 1965
we held constitutional the “perjury by contradictory statements” statute, § 13-562, A.R.S.