Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Kenyon v. Hammer, 688 P.2d 961.

186 citing documents.

State v. Schaffer 48 P.3d 1202 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Harvest v. Craig 48 P.3d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Harvest v. Craig 48 P.3d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
As the Arizona Supreme Court has explained: “It is one thing to hold that .the right to bring a cause of action is guaranteed in the constitution, free from legislative control, but entirely different to hold that the constitution also requires that we continue to follow the same rules of pleading, procedure and evidence that existed in 1912.” , (citations omitted).
Walk v. Ring 44 P.3d 990 Ariz. 2002
Walk v. Ring 44 P.3d 990 Ariz. 2002
Kurti v. Maricopa County 33 P.3d 499 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Kurti v. Maricopa County 33 P.3d 499 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
1883 ); , (noting that under the rational basis test, “equal protection is violated ‘only if the classification rests on grounds wholly irrelevant to the achievement of the state’s objective.’ ”) (quoting McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 425 , 81 S.Ct.
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Dougherty 29 P.3d 862 Ariz. 2001
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Dougherty 29 P.3d 862 Ariz. 2001
(citing Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 , 103 S.Ct.
City of Tucson v. Grezaffi 23 P.3d 675 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
City of Tucson v. Grezaffi 23 P.3d 675 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
¶ 16 Grezaffl does not claim to be a member of any suspect class and, contrary to her suggestion, the law does not recognize any fundamental, constitutionally protected “right to smoke in the same area in which [one] choose[s] to eat.” , (fundamental right is one explicitly or implicitly guaranteed by constitution); Watson, , (right is “fundamental” if it is deeply rooted in our nation’s history and tradition or so ingrained in concept of ordered liberty that neither justice nor liberty
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community School v. State 23 P.3d 103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community School v. State 23 P.3d 103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
(differential treatment); Mem’l Hosp.
Clouse Ex Rel. Clouse v. State 16 P.3d 757 Ariz. 2001
Clouse v. State 11 P.3d 1012 Ariz. 2000
Eller Media Co. v. City of Tucson 7 P.3d 136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Eller Media Co. v. City of Tucson 7 P.3d 136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
have analyzed its constitutional claims under the strict scrutiny test, asserting that that test applies when a government regulation burdens or impinges upon a fundamental right, such as the exercise of speech, and that the City’s “bottom-mounted lighting prohibition affects [its] ability to transmit commercial and non-commercial messages on outdoor advertising structures.” , (law or regulation burdening fundamental right reviewed under strict scrutiny test).
Cronin v. Sheldon 991 P.2d 231 Ariz. 1999
Cronin v. Sheldon 991 P.2d 231 Ariz. 1999
Bills v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund 984 P.2d 574 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Bills v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund 984 P.2d 574 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Stulce v. SALT RIVER PROJECT AGRICULTURAL IMPROVEMENT AND POWER DISTRICT 3 P.3d 1007 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Stulce v. SALT RIVER PROJECT AGRICULTURAL IMPROVEMENT AND POWER DISTRICT 3 P.3d 1007 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Kessen v. Stewart 990 P.2d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Kessen v. Stewart 990 P.2d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Walters v. Maricopa County 990 P.2d 677 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Walters v. Maricopa County 990 P.2d 677 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
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
555 , 136 L.Ed.2d 473 (1996); -79 , -71 (1984) (identifying three levels of scrutiny).
Goodman v. Samaritan Health System 990 P.2d 1061 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Goodman v. Samaritan Health System 990 P.2d 1061 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
-83 , -75 (1984); Boswell v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.
Duarte v. State 971 P.2d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Duarte v. State 971 P.2d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
See, , , see also 3 Ronald D. Rotunda and John E. Nowak, Treatise on Constitutional Law § 18.3, n. 5 (2d ed.1992).
Larsen v. Nissan Motor Corp. in U.S.A. 978 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Larsen v. Nissan Motor Corp. in U.S.A. 978 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Our supreme court has stated that the prohibition of article 2, § 31 “represents a ‘fundamental guaranty] to the people of Arizona,’ intended ‘to have broad sweep to protect all injured persons.’ ” , , 80 n. 9, , 972 n. 9 (1984).
Samaritan Health System v. Superior Court 981 P.2d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Samaritan Health System v. Superior Court 981 P.2d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
The founders decided to expand the clause to provide a “broad sweep to protect all injured persons, not just injured laborers in certain occupations.” , 79 n. 9, , 971 n. 9.
Young v. City of Scottsdale 970 P.2d 942 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Young v. City of Scottsdale 970 P.2d 942 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
76 n. 6, , 968 n. 6 (1984).
Ramirez v. Health Partners 972 P.2d 658 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Ramirez v. Health Partners 972 P.2d 658 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Co., , (Feldman, J., dissenting), overruled in Hazine; a statute abolishing or barring a cause of action before it reasonably could be brought, Barrio; , or a statute purportedly limiting damages in a well-established cause of action (e.g., defamation actions where retractions had been printed).
Nolde v. Frankie 949 P.2d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
AA MECHANICAL v. Superior Court 948 P.2d 492 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
AA MECHANICAL v. Superior Court 948 P.2d 492 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
the supreme court said that the right to bring an action to recover for damages is a fundamental right.
Hunter Contracting Co. v. Superior Court 947 P.2d 892 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Hunter Contracting Co. v. Superior Court 947 P.2d 892 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JD-6123 956 P.2d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JD-6123 956 P.2d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Diaz v. Magma Copper Co. 950 P.2d 1165 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Diaz v. Magma Copper Co. 950 P.2d 1165 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
ourt stated that the right to recover damages for wrongful death “is not placed beyond the power of the legislature to abrogate by § 6 of Article 18 of the Arizona Constitution” and “can be granted or withheld at the pleasure of the legislature.” Although the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals cast doubt on this holding in Davis v. Dow Chemical Corp., 819 F.2d 231 (1987), , it has not been overruled by our supreme court.