Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Tucson Gas & Electric Company v. Schantz, 428 P.2d 686.

34 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Beau John Greene 527 P.3d 322 Ariz. 2023
State of Arizona v. Beau John Greene 527 P.3d 322 Ariz. 2023
(stating that “the testimony or opinions of individual members of the legislative body are not admissible” for discerning legislative intent); ¶ 12 (2014) (observing that “a legislator, lobbyist, or other interested party lacks competence
Zwicky v. Premiere Vacation Collection Owners Ass'n 418 P.3d 1001 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Zwicky v. Premiere Vacation Collection Owners Ass'n 418 P.3d 1001 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Also, in Tucson Gas & Electric Co. v. Schantz , , the Arizona Supreme Court addressed a shareholder's request for corporate records and explained that a proper purpose is one that enables a shareholder to "derive any information that will enable him to protect his interest."
City of Phoenix v. Glenayre Electronics, Inc. 393 P.3d 919 Ariz. 2017
City of Phoenix v. Glenayre Electronics, Inc. 393 P.3d 919 Ariz. 2017
-91 (1967) (concluding that a narrow statute regarding record inspections did not supersede the broader common law right to inspect corporate records and noting that “the mere fact that a statute partially codifies the common law does not necessarily abolish the remainder of the common law rule”
SEMPRE LTD. PARTNERSHIP v. Maricopa County 235 P.3d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
SEMPRE LTD. PARTNERSHIP v. Maricopa County 235 P.3d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
("[T]he testimony or opinions of individual members of the legislative body are not admissible.”).
State Compensation Fund v. Ireland 851 P.2d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State Compensation Fund v. Ireland 851 P.2d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Picture Rocks Fire District v. Pima County 733 P.2d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Picture Rocks Fire District v. Pima County 733 P.2d 639 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
See also Tucson Gas & , (“[T]he testimony or opinions of individual members of the legislative body are not admissible.”) Finally, appellants claim the trial court erred in refusing to enter additional findings of fact.
Hall v. A.N.R. Freight System, Inc. 717 P.2d 434 Ariz. 1986
Hall v. A.N.R. Freight System, Inc. 717 P.2d 434 Ariz. 1986
State v. Mathews 633 P.2d 1039 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
State v. Mathews 633 P.2d 1039 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Golder v. Department of Revenue, State Board of Tax Appeals 599 P.2d 216 Ariz. 1979
Golder v. Department of Revenue, State Board of Tax Appeals 599 P.2d 216 Ariz. 1979
554, 557 , -515 , -690 (1967).
United Bank v. Mesa N. O. Nelson Co. 590 P.2d 1384 Ariz. 1979
United Bank v. Mesa N. O. Nelson Co. 590 P.2d 1384 Ariz. 1979
Jones v. Manhart 585 P.2d 1250 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Jones v. Manhart 585 P.2d 1250 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Associated Students of the University v. Arizona Board of Regents 584 P.2d 564 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Associated Students of the University v. Arizona Board of Regents 584 P.2d 564 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
However, statutes are not deemed to repeal the common law by implication unless the legislative intent to do so is clearly manifested.” Tucson Gas & at 515 , at 690 (1967).
City of Tucson v. Ruelas 508 P.2d 1174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
City of Tucson v. Ruelas 508 P.2d 1174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Riffle v. Robert L. Parker Company 505 P.2d 268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Riffle v. Robert L. Parker Company 505 P.2d 268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
), such an entry must be reasonable both as to time and place.
State Tax Commission v. Marcus J. Lawrence Memorial Hospital 485 P.2d 277 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
State Tax Commission v. Marcus J. Lawrence Memorial Hospital 485 P.2d 277 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
294 P. 1106 (1930); Tucson Gas &amp
In Re Estate of Thelen 450 P.2d 123 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
In Re Estate of Thelen 450 P.2d 123 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Schwartz v. Schwartz 440 P.2d 326 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Schwartz v. Schwartz 440 P.2d 326 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968