Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Planned Parenthood Center of Tucson, Inc. v. Marks, 497 P.2d 534.

54 citing documents.

Planned Parenthood v. Kristin mayes/hazelrigg Ariz. 2024
Planned Parenthood v. Kristin mayes/hazelrigg Ariz. 2024
of Tucson, –13 (1972) (reversing the trial court’s order of dismissal and remanding to proceed to a resolution of the case on its merits).
Pettersen v. Plexus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Pettersen v. Plexus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
of Tucson, (explaining a justiciable controversy arises when “adverse claims are asserted upon present existing facts”).
Karen Fann v. State of Arizona 493 P.3d 246 Ariz. 2021
Karen Fann v. State of Arizona 493 P.3d 246 Ariz. 2021
of Tucson, (citation omitted).
Mills v. Abotr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Mills v. Abotr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Osorio v. Ross Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Osorio v. Ross Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Brush & Nib v. City of Phoenix Ariz. 2019
Brush & Nib v. City of Phoenix Ariz. 2019
of Tucson, 12 BRUSH & –13 (1972) (stating that challengers of statute forbidding abortions under certain circumstances were not required to wait for criminal prosecution because that statute allegedly chilled their constitutional rights and therefore constituted an actual controversy).
Az Biltmore v. Abr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Az Biltmore v. Abr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Compassionate v. adhs/nelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Compassionate v. adhs/nelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Café Valley, Inc. v. Navidi 330 P.3d 1009 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Café Valley, Inc. v. Navidi 330 P.3d 1009 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
DeVries v. State 198 P.3d 580 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
DeVries v. State 198 P.3d 580 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Yes on Prop 200 v. Napolitano, ¶29 , Planned Parenthood Center of Tucson, -13 , -39 (1972).
Mayer Unified School and Gadsen Elementary School v. Winkleman, Az State Land Dept... Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Mayer Unified School and Gadsen Elementary School v. Winkleman, Az State Land Dept... Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
36 (action for declaratory judgment requires “actual controversy which must be real and not theoretical”); Land Dep’t v. O’Toole, (justiciable controversy requires assertion of legal inte
Hunt v. Richardson 163 P.3d 1064 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Hunt v. Richardson 163 P.3d 1064 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Yes on Prop 200 v. Napolitano 160 P.3d 1216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Yes on Prop 200 v. Napolitano 160 P.3d 1216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Keggi v. Northbrook Property & Casualty Insurance 13 P.3d 785 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Keggi v. Northbrook Property & Casualty Insurance 13 P.3d 785 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
See, e.g., Planned Parenthood Center of Tucson
Thomas v. City of Phoenix 828 P.2d 1210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Thomas v. City of Phoenix 828 P.2d 1210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
This situation is completely unlike that in Planned Parenthood Center of Tucson, , a case in which a criminal statute was challenged.
American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees v. Lewis 797 P.2d 6 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees v. Lewis 797 P.2d 6 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Transamerica Title Insurance Co. Trust Nos. 8295, 8297, 8298, 8299, 8300 & 8301 v. City of Tucson 757 P.2d 1055 Ariz. 1988
Transamerica Title Insurance Co. Trust Nos. 8295, 8297, 8298, 8299, 8300 & 8301 v. City of Tucson 757 P.2d 1055 Ariz. 1988
Planned Parenthood Center of Tucson, P.2d 534 (1972).
Land Department v. O'Toole 739 P.2d 1360 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Land Department v. O'Toole 739 P.2d 1360 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Snow v. Western Savings & Loan Ass'n 730 P.2d 197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Snow v. Western Savings & Loan Ass'n 730 P.2d 197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
See Planned Parenthood Center of Tucson
Polaris International Metals Corp. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 652 P.2d 1023 Ariz. 1982
Polaris International Metals Corp. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 652 P.2d 1023 Ariz. 1982
* * * A ‘justiciable controversy’ arises where adverse claims are asserted upon present existing facts, which have ripened for judicial determination.” Planned Parenthood Center of Tucson, , (citations omitted).
BD. OF SUP'RS OF MARICOPA COUNTY v. Woodall 586 P.2d 628 Ariz. 1978
Board of Supervisors v. Woodall 586 P.2d 628 Ariz. 1978
BD. OF SUP'RS OF MARICOPA COUNTY v. Woodall 586 P.2d 628 Ariz. 1978
Planned Parenthood Center of Tucson
Board of Supervisors v. Woodall 586 P.2d 628 Ariz. 1978
Planned Parenthood Center of Tucson
BOARD OF SUP'RS OF MARICOPA CTY. v. Woodall 586 P.2d 640 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
BOARD OF SUP'RS OF MARICOPA CTY. v. Woodall 586 P.2d 640 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Planned Parenthood Center of Tucson
Town of Wickenburg v. State 565 P.2d 1326 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Town of Wickenburg v. State 565 P.2d 1326 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
As this Court stated in Planned Parenthood Center of Tucson, at 310 , at 536 (1972): *468 “The remedial purpose of the declaratory judgments act has been adverted to in Peterson v. Central Arizona Light & Power Co.
Elkins v. Vana 541 P.2d 585 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Elkins v. Vana 541 P.2d 585 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Peterson v. Central Arizona Light & Power Co., , *127 Planned Parenthood Center of Tucson