Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Pinetop-Lakeside Sanitary District v. Ferguson, 630 P.2d 1032.

27 citing documents.

Boyd v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Boyd v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Carbajal v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 190 P.3d 737 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Klein 150 P.3d 778 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Klein 150 P.3d 778 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
v. Ferguson, , ); Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 2.1(C).
Phelps v. Firebird Raceway, Inc. 111 P.3d 1003 Ariz. 2005
Phelps v. Firebird Raceway, Inc. 111 P.3d 1003 Ariz. 2005
v. Ferguson, , (“[W]here a constitutional provision is clear, no judicial construction is required or proper.”).
Hohokam Irrigation & Drainage District v. Arizona Public Service Co. 64 P.3d 836 Ariz. 2003
Hohokam Irrigation & Drainage District v. Arizona Public Service Co. 64 P.3d 836 Ariz. 2003
v. Ferguson, (“The unmistakable language of Article 13, Section 7 grants improvement districts all immunities and exemptions.”); Maricopa County v. Maricopa County Mun.
US West Communications, Inc. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 34 P.3d 351 Ariz. 2001
US West Communications, Inc. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 34 P.3d 351 Ariz. 2001
v. Ferguson, , (“[W]here a constitutional provision is clear, no judicial construction is required or proper.”).
In Re Cameron T. 949 P.2d 545 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
In Re Cameron T. 949 P.2d 545 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Industrial Development Authority v. Maricopa County 944 P.2d 73 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Industrial Development Authority v. Maricopa County 944 P.2d 73 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
argues that “this Court should focus its analysis upon the recognized public policy considerations, and the consequences of the alternative interpretations.” Our primary focus when interpreting a constitutional provision, however, is on “the intent of those who framed the provision.”
State v. Roscoe 912 P.2d 1297 Ariz. 1996
State v. Roscoe 912 P.2d 1297 Ariz. 1996
v. Ferguson, , , (“If the language [of the statute] is plain, we need look no further.”).
Jett v. City of Tucson 882 P.2d 426 Ariz. 1994
Jett v. City of Tucson 882 P.2d 426 Ariz. 1994
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Apache County 831 P.2d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Apache County 831 P.2d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Perini Land & Development Co. v. Pima County 825 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1992
Perini Land & Development Co. v. Pima County 825 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1992
Maricopa County v. Maricopa County Municipal Water Conservation District No. 1 830 P.2d 846 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Maricopa County v. Maricopa County Municipal Water Conservation District No. 1 830 P.2d 846 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
-03 , -35 (1981), the Arizona Supreme Court accepted the district’s argument that because Art. 13, § 7 granted the district exemptions provided to all other political subdivisions, and because the counties received a filing fee exemption as a political subdivision, the district was enti *331 tie
FLOOD CONTROL DIST. OF MARICOPA CTY. v. Conlin 712 P.2d 979 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
FLOOD CONTROL DIST. OF MARICOPA CTY. v. Conlin 712 P.2d 979 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
See Ariz. Const, art. 13, § 7