Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Arizona Downs v. Arizona Horsemen's Foundation, 637 P.2d 1053.

193 citing documents.

In Re Nickolas S. 226 P.3d 1038 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Courts have a “duty to save a statute, if possible, by construing it so that it does not violate the constitution.” , (citing Ariz. Downs v. Ariz. Horsemen’s Found., , ).
STATE EX REL. AZ. REG. OF CONT. v. Johnston 214 P.3d 441 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
STATE EX REL. AZ. REG. OF CONT. v. Johnston 214 P.3d 441 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
See, -55 , -58 (1981) ("Although the word `shall' usually indicates a mandatory provision, the word has also been construed to indicate desirability, preference, or permission.") (citations omitted); ¶ 10 , (acknowled
Arizona Minority Coalition for Fair Redistricting v. Redistricting Com'n Arizona Independent 208 P.3d 676 Ariz. 2009
Arizona Minority Coalition for Fair Redistricting v. Redistricting Com'n Arizona Independent 208 P.3d 676 Ariz. 2009
See, e.g., Aros, 194 Ariz. at 67-68 , 977 P.2d at 789-90 ; Ariz. Downs v. Ariz. Horsemen’s Found., , see also Murphy, 117 Ariz. at 61 , 570 P.2d at 1074 (“[W]hen there is a reasonable, even though debatable, basis for the enactment of a statute, we will uphold the act unless it is clearly unconstitutional.”).
JILLY v. Rayes 209 P.3d 176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
JILLY v. Rayes 209 P.3d 176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
(citing Ariz. Downs v. Ariz. Horsemen’s Found., , ).
Seisinger v. Siebel 203 P.3d 483 Ariz. 2009
Seisinger v. Siebel 203 P.3d 483 Ariz. 2009
(citing Ariz. Downs v. Ariz. Horsemen’s Found., , ).
Town of Gilbert v. Maricopa County 141 P.3d 416 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Town of Gilbert v. Maricopa County 141 P.3d 416 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
(quoting Ariz. Downs v. Ariz. Horsemen’s Found., , ).
State v. Gomez 127 P.3d 873 Ariz. 2006
State v. Jackson 113 P.3d 112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Jackson 113 P.3d 112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Ariz. Downs v. Ariz. Horsemen’s Found.
Grammatico v. Industrial Commission 90 P.3d 211 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Bertleson v. Sacks Tierney, P.A. 60 P.3d 703 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Bertleson v. Sacks Tierney, P.A. 60 P.3d 703 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Ariz. Downs v. Ariz. Horsemen’s Found.
Empress Adult Video & Bookstore v. City of Tucson 59 P.3d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Empress Adult Video & Bookstore v. City of Tucson 59 P.3d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
See Arizona Downs v. Arizona Horsemen’s Found., , (not unconstitutional to treat different classes in varying ways); Reinstein (equal protection provisions do not prohibit all classifications).
Simat Corp. v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System 56 P.3d 28 Ariz. 2002
Simat Corp. v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System 56 P.3d 28 Ariz. 2002
Kenyon, 142 Ariz. at 79 , 688 P.2d at 971 ; Arizona Downs v. Arizona Horsemen’s Found., , *459
Long v. Napolitano 53 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Long v. Napolitano 53 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
at 192-93 , 848 P.2d at 277-78 ; Ariz. Downs v. Ariz. Horsemen’s Found., , (“It is not unconstitutional ...
Lake Havasu City v. Arizona Department of Health Services 48 P.3d 499 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Lake Havasu City v. Arizona Department of Health Services 48 P.3d 499 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
See Ariz. Downs v. Ariz. Horsemen’s Found.
State v. Seyrafi 32 P.3d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Seyrafi 32 P.3d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
See Arizona Downs v. Ariz. Horsemen’s Foundation, -55 , -58 (1981).
Arizona Libertarian Party v. Schmeral 28 P.3d 948 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Arizona Libertarian Party v. Schmeral 28 P.3d 948 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
See Ariz. Downs v. Ariz. Horsemen’s Found.
HCZ Construction Inc. v. First Franklin Financial Corp. 18 P.3d 155 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
HCZ Construction Inc. v. First Franklin Financial Corp. 18 P.3d 155 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Arizona Downs v. Arizona Horsemen’s Found., -55 , -58 (1981); Dep’t , (citation omitted).
State v. Watson 6 P.3d 752 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Watson 6 P.3d 752 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Arizona Downs v. Arizona Horsemen’s Foundation
State v. Gilfillan 998 P.2d 1069 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Gilfillan 998 P.2d 1069 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
See Arizona Downs v. Arizona Horsemen’s Foundation, , Takacs, 169 Ariz. at 395 , 819 P.2d at 981 .
Aida Renta Trust v. Department of Revenue 3 P.3d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Aida Renta Trust v. Department of Revenue 3 P.3d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Arizona Downs v. Arizona Horsemen’s Found.
Martin v. Reinstein 987 P.2d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Martin v. Reinstein 987 P.2d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
563 (1955), quoted in Arizona Downs v. Arizona Horsemen’s Found.
Pavlik v. Chinle Unified School District No. 24 985 P.2d 633 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Pavlik v. Chinle Unified School District No. 24 985 P.2d 633 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
v. Superior Court, , Arizona Downs v. Arizona Horsemen’s Found.
Kotterman v. Killian 972 P.2d 606 Ariz. 1999
Kotterman v. Killian 972 P.2d 606 Ariz. 1999
Arizona Downs v. Arizona Horsemen’s Found.
San Carlos Apache Tribe v. Superior Court 972 P.2d 179 Ariz. 1999
San Carlos Apache Tribe v. Superior Court 972 P.2d 179 Ariz. 1999
Strict scrutiny is the standard applied to an equal protection challenge of a statute that “is aimed at limiting a fundamental right” or “discriminates among individuals based on a ‘suspect class.’ ” Arizona Downs v. Arizona Horsemen’s Found.
AA MECHANICAL v. Superior Court 948 P.2d 492 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
City of Tucson v. Woods 959 P.2d 394 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
City of Tucson v. Woods 959 P.2d 394 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
In Town of Surprise , the supreme court commented on Picture Rocks in a footnote, saying: We note that Picture Rocks, on which Division Two relied [in one of the cases the supreme court was reviewing] did not specifically apply the three standards first set out in Arizona Downs [v. Arizona Horsemen’s Foundation, , ] and clarified here.
Forino v. Arizona Department of Transportation 952 P.2d 315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Forino v. Arizona Department of Transportation 952 P.2d 315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Arizona Downs v. Arizona Horsemen’s Found.