Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite McElhaney Cattle Co. v. Smith, 645 P.2d 801.

46 citing documents.

Brush & Nib v. City of Phoenix Ariz. 2019
Brush & Nib v. City of Phoenix Ariz. 2019
Verduzco v. American Valet 377 P.3d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Verduzco v. American Valet 377 P.3d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(“[T]he meaning to be ascribed to the words is that which is generally understood and used by the people.”); , (“[T]he court must give meaning to each word, phrase, clause, and sentence of the provision.”).
Hub v. maricopa/ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Hub v. maricopa/ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Moreover, “[t]he taxpayers have the burden of establishing the right to an exemption from taxation.”
Clean Elections v. Hon. brain/bennett Ariz. 2014
Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission v. Brain 322 P.3d 139 Ariz. 2014
Clean Elections v. Hon. brain/bennett Ariz. 2014
–91, –06 (1982) (reasoning that if the electorate had 2 The legislature has amended the CCEA, including § 16-941(B), in ways that do not affect the issue before us. See 2007 Ariz. Sess.
Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission v. Brain 322 P.3d 139 Ariz. 2014
–91, –06 (1982) (reasoning that if the electorate had 2 The legislature has amended the CCEA, including § 16-941(B), in ways that do not affect the issue before us. See 2007 Ariz. Sess.
Hon. Fields v. Elected Officials Retirement Ariz. 2014
Fields v. Elected Officials' Retirement Plan 320 P.3d 1160 Ariz. 2014
Fields v. Elected Officials' Retirement Plan 320 P.3d 1160 Ariz. 2014
of the electorate that adopted it.”
Hon. Fields v. Elected Officials Retirement Ariz. 2014
of the electorate that adopted it.”
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Mathis 290 P.3d 1226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Mathis 290 P.3d 1226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
“If, however, the constitutional language is ambiguous, or a construction is urged which would result in an absurdity, a court may look behind the bare words of the provision to determine the *110 conditions which gave rise to it and the effect which it was intended to have.”
Scenic Arizona v. City of Phoenix Board of Adjustment 268 P.3d 370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Scenic Arizona v. City of Phoenix Board of Adjustment 268 P.3d 370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
These methods must include “consideration of the statute’s context, language, subject matter, historical background, effects and consequences, and spirit and purpose,” id., as well as “the evil sought to be remedied.”
Cain v. Horne 202 P.3d 1178 Ariz. 2009
Cain v. Horne 202 P.3d 1178 Ariz. 2009
When a provision is not clear, we can consider “the history behind the provision, the purpose sought to be accomplished by its enactment, and the evil sought to be remedied.” 8 (citation omitted).
Heath v. Kiger 176 P.3d 690 Ariz. 2008
Heath v. Kiger 176 P.3d 690 Ariz. 2008
(“When the words of a constitutional provision are not defined within it, the meaning to be ascribed to the words is that which is generally understood and used by 1 Article 2, Section 22.A.2, of the Arizona Constitution, states: “All persons charged with crime shall be bailable
Arizona Minority Coalition for Fair Redistricting v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission 121 P.3d 843 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Arizona Minority Coalition for Fair Redistricting v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission 121 P.3d 843 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Renee Antonio Fragoso v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Renee Antonio Fragoso v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
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
And, unless the constitution otherwise defines them, we give the words of a constitutional provision their “natural, obvious and ordinary meaning.” Southwest Lumber, 92 Ariz. at 327 , 376 P.2d at 856 ; , (“When the words of a constitutional provision are not defined within it, the meaning to be ascribed to the words is that which is generally understood and used by the people.”).
Kotterman v. Killian 972 P.2d 606 Ariz. 1999
Kotterman v. Killian 972 P.2d 606 Ariz. 1999
We must therefore look to their “natural, obvious and ordinary meaning.” , , (“When the words of a constitutional provision are not defined within it, the meaning to be ascribed to the words is that which is generally understood and used by the people.”); Dunn v. Industrial Comm’n, , (requiring court to give clear and
Airport Properties v. Maricopa County 985 P.2d 574 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Airport Properties v. Maricopa County 985 P.2d 574 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Apache County v. Southwest Lumber Mills, Inc.
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
Soto v. Superior Court 949 P.2d 539 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Soto v. Superior Court 949 P.2d 539 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Jett v. City of Tucson 882 P.2d 426 Ariz. 1994
Jett v. City of Tucson 882 P.2d 426 Ariz. 1994
citing Apache County v. Southwest Lumber Mills, Inc.
Sa v. Superior Ct. in and for Cty. of Maricopa 831 P.2d 1297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Sa v. Superior Ct. in and for Cty. of Maricopa 831 P.2d 1297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Examination of the publicity pamphlet to which Arizona courts repeatedly have referred in analyzing the drafters’ intent and interpreting provisions of the Arizona Constitution, , , County of Apache v. Southwest Lumber Mills, Inc., , , yields nothing to cloud the apparent meaning.
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
See, , Apache County v. Southwest Lumber Mills, Inc.
City of South Tucson v. Industrial Commission 753 P.2d 1199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
City of South Tucson v. Industrial Commission 753 P.2d 1199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
and of the people who adopted it.” , accord McPeak v. Industrial Comm’n
Laos v. Arnold 685 P.2d 111 Ariz. 1984
Laos v. Arnold 685 P.2d 111 Ariz. 1984
As we recently stated: “The governing principle of constitutional construction is to ascertain and give effect to the intent and purpose of the framers of the constitutional provision and of the people who adopted it.”