DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Bedard v. Gonzales, 583 P.2d 906.

30 citing documents.

  • Staci Burk v. Doug Ducey Ariz. 2021
  • Staci Burk v. Doug Ducey Ariz. 2021
    No. 1, (election contest) and Bedard v. Gonzales, 120 Ariz. 19, 20 (1978) (nomination petition challenge); accord Bohart v. Hanna, 213 Ariz. 480, 482 ¶ 6 (2006)(noting “the requirement that time elements in election statutes be strictly construed” in a nomination petition appeal).
  • State of Arizona v. Hesam Mohajerin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
  • State of Arizona v. Hesam Mohajerin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
  • Klebba v. Carpenter 139 P.3d 609 Ariz. 2006
  • Klebba v. Carpenter 139 P.3d 609 Ariz. 2006
  • Bohart v. Hanna 143 P.3d 1021 Ariz. 2006
  • Bohart v. Hanna 143 P.3d 1021 Ariz. 2006
  • State v. Miguel 101 P.3d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • State v. Miguel 101 P.3d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
    For example, , held that Rule 6(a) had no application to the time requirements for challenging the nomination petitions of candidates for elective office.
  • State v. Cabrera 44 P.3d 174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • State v. Cabrera 44 P.3d 174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
    However, , the Supreme Court, , held that Rule 6(a) had no application to the time requirements for challenging the nomination petitions of candidates for elective office.
  • Fisher v. City of Apache Junction 28 P.3d 946 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
  • Fisher v. City of Apache Junction 28 P.3d 946 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
    (five-day limit for challenging nomination petitions means five calendar days, and Rule 6(a) does not apply); , (Rule 6(a) does not extend five-day limitation provided in statute for contesting election authorizing issuance of bonds by
  • Thielking v. Kirschner 859 P.2d 777 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • Thielking v. Kirschner 859 P.2d 777 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
    P.2d 906 (1978) the supreme court refused to exclude intermediate weekend days under Rule 6(a) when calculating the five day filing period provided under A.R.S.
  • Barry v. Alberty 843 P.2d 1279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • Barry v. Alberty 843 P.2d 1279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
    (because of time required to prepare ballots, five-day limit for challenging nomination petitions means five calendar days and Rule 6(a) does not apply); Smith v. Board of Directors, Hosp.
  • Berry v. Superior Court 788 P.2d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • Berry v. Superior Court 788 P.2d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
    approved , Pace v. Pace, 128 Ariz. at 457 , 626 P.2d at 621 .
  • Smith v. Board of Directors 716 P.2d 55 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • Smith v. Board of Directors 716 P.2d 55 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
    The material part of Rule 6(a) in effect during this period provides: “When the period of time prescribed or allowed is less than 7 days, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays shall be excluded in the computation.” The issue has been decided adversely to contestants’
  • Brousseau v. Fitzgerald 675 P.2d 713 Ariz. 1984
  • Brousseau v. Fitzgerald 675 P.2d 713 Ariz. 1984
    § 16-351(A) that “[w]ithin ten days after the filing of the action, the superior court shall hear and render a decision on the matter.” , held that the time elements in the election statutes were to be construed strictly.
  • Hunsaker v. Deal 663 P.2d 608 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • Hunsaker v. Deal 663 P.2d 608 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • Pace v. Pace 626 P.2d 619 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
  • Pace v. Pace 626 P.2d 619 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
  • Sarwark v. Thorneycroft 596 P.2d 1173 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
  • Sarwark v. Thorneycroft 596 P.2d 1173 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979