Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Saggio v. Connelly, 709 P.2d 874.

26 citing documents.

Roundtree v. Page Ariz. 2025
Roundtree v. Page Ariz. 2025
voters demanded that an election be held to disincorporate the City of Apache Junction.
Karen Fann v. State of Arizona 493 P.3d 246 Ariz. 2021
Karen Fann v. State of Arizona 493 P.3d 246 Ariz. 2021
v. Kiley, ¶ 33 (2017) (“The Rule applies to ‘act[s],’ which are enacted by the legislature, and does not address initiative or referendum petitions.”) (quoting Barth, 40 Ariz. at 556); (“Legislation, whether by the people or the legislature, is a definite, specific act or resolution.”); (“[A]n act approved by the people in a manner contrary to that provided by the Constitution is just as invalid as an act passed by the Legislature in a manne
Vangilder v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Vangilder v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
at which the electorate would be asked to decide whether [the tax should be enacted].”
Louis Hoffman v. Michele Reagan 429 P.3d 70 Ariz. 2018
Louis Hoffman v. Michele Reagan 429 P.3d 70 Ariz. 2018
¶6 Respondents correctly note that the power of the people themselves to refer legislative actions to the ballot for approval or rejection extends only to legislative acts, rather than “bills under consideration,” and that “[t]o be considered legislation [a] measure must enact something.”
Jaime Molera v. reagan/invest in Education Ariz. 2018
Jaime Molera v. reagan/invest in Education Ariz. 2018
–84 (1992) (holding referendum would not appear on ballot for failure to comply with signature requirement); W. Devcor, –32 (1991) (determining referendum petitions were invalid because they did not contain required circulators’ statements); –42 (1985) (holding initiative invalid for failing to propose a law or ordinance); Cottonwood Dev.
Respect the Promise in Opposition to R-14-02-Neighbors for a Better Glendale v. Hanna 360 P.3d 92 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Respect the Promise in Opposition to R-14-02-Neighbors for a Better Glendale v. Hanna 360 P.3d 92 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
“Legislation, whether by the people or the legislature, is a definite, specific act or resolution.”
LEAGUE OF ARIZONA CITIES & TOWNS v. Brewer 146 P.3d 58 Ariz. 2006
LEAGUE OF ARIZONA CITIES & TOWNS v. Brewer 146 P.3d 58 Ariz. 2006
Fritz v. City of Kingman 957 P.2d 337 Ariz. 1998
Fritz v. City of Kingman 957 P.2d 337 Ariz. 1998
Kingman’s General Plan is Not Legislation ¶ 11 To constitute legislation, a proposal must enact something; it must be a “definite, specific act or resolution.”
Winkle v. City of Tucson 949 P.2d 502 Ariz. 1997
Winkle v. City of Tucson 949 P.2d 502 Ariz. 1997
Robertson v. Graziano 942 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Robertson v. Graziano 942 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
(petition is defective in form if it is not “legislation”).
Galati v. Lake Havasu City 920 P.2d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Galati v. Lake Havasu City 920 P.2d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Wennerstrom v. City of Mesa 821 P.2d 146 Ariz. 1991
Wennerstrom v. City of Mesa 821 P.2d 146 Ariz. 1991
the Apache Junction City Clerk refused to place an initiative measure on the ballot for a general election.
Roberts v. City of Mesa 760 P.2d 1091 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Roberts v. City of Mesa 760 P.2d 1091 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
the supreme court stated the following rule: Legislation, whether by the people or the legislature, is a definite, specific act or resolution.