Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Murphy v. State, 181 P.2d 336.

54 citing documents.

State v. Az Regents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Az Regents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Rae Ann Rumery v. Maria baier/doug Ducey 294 P.3d 113 Ariz. 2013
Rae Ann Rumery v. Maria baier/doug Ducey 294 P.3d 113 Ariz. 2013
As Kadish observed, “we must strictly apply the Enabling Act’s restrictions regarding disposal of school trust assets.” 155 Ariz. at 488, 747 P.2d at 1187; (noting that “every act of the legislature that in any manner circumvents the plain provisions of the Enabling Act is struck down as unconstitutional and void”).
Rumery v. Baier 268 P.3d 1120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Rumery v. Baier 268 P.3d 1120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
In any event, “little or no precedent exists, in acts pursuant to which other states were admitted into the Union or in decisions or legislative enact- *471 mente of other states, to aid us in the proper construction of the provisions of our Enabling Act and applicable constitutional provisions.”
Mayer Unified School District v. Winkleman 201 P.3d 523 Ariz. 2009
Mayer Unified School District v. Winkleman 201 P.3d 523 Ariz. 2009
2037 , 104 L.Ed.2d 696 (1989), -53 , -46 (1947).
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
The Act placed significant restrictions on the disposition of trust 8 lands, representing a “complete and absolute departure from the enabling acts under which other states were admitted.”
Guardians v. Wells 34 P.3d 364 Ariz. 2001
Guardians v. Wells 34 P.3d 364 Ariz. 2001
Korte v. Bayless 16 P.3d 200 Ariz. 2001
Korte v. Bayless 16 P.3d 200 Ariz. 2001
Forest Guardians v. Wells 4 P.3d 1054 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Forest Guardians v. Wells 4 P.3d 1054 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
See Gladden Farms, , ( P.2d 336 (1947)).
Princess Plaza Partners v. State 928 P.2d 638 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Princess Plaza Partners v. State 928 P.2d 638 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Waddell v. Arizona State Land Department 873 P.2d 646 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Waddell v. Arizona State Land Department 873 P.2d 646 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Fain Land & Cattle Co. v. Hassell 790 P.2d 242 Ariz. 1990
Fain Land & Cattle Co. v. Hassell 790 P.2d 242 Ariz. 1990
2 See Kadish, 155 Ariz. at 486-88 , 747 P.2d at 1185-87 ; -53 , -46 (1947) (recounting history of abuses that led Congress to insert the restrictions in the Arizona-New Mexico Enabling Act).
Bowman v. Board of Regents 785 P.2d 71 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Bowman v. Board of Regents 785 P.2d 71 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
It also contends that President Hughes was not lawfully empowered to disregard § 7-207, and therefore his “hold in abeyance” letter was unauthorized or ultra vires, , Mohave County v. Mohave-Kingman Estates, Inc.
DEER VAL. UNIFIED SCH. D. v. Superior Ct. 760 P.2d 537 Ariz. 1988
Deer Valley Unified School District No. 97 v. Superior Court 760 P.2d 537 Ariz. 1988
DEER VAL. UNIFIED SCH. D. v. Superior Ct. 760 P.2d 537 Ariz. 1988
Deer Valley Unified School District No. 97 v. Superior Court 760 P.2d 537 Ariz. 1988
Kadish v. Arizona State Land Department 747 P.2d 1183 Ariz. 1987
Kadish v. Arizona State Land Department 747 P.2d 1183 Ariz. 1987
Farmers Investment Co. v. Arizona State Land Department 666 P.2d 469 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Farmers Investment Co. v. Arizona State Land Department 666 P.2d 469 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
For an exhaustive analysis of the history of the Enabling Act
Gladden Farms, Inc. v. State 633 P.2d 325 Ariz. 1981
Gladden Farms, Inc. v. State 633 P.2d 325 Ariz. 1981
National Advertising Co. v. Arizona Department of Transportation 617 P.2d 50 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
National Advertising Co. v. Arizona Department of Transportation 617 P.2d 50 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Amtitle Trust Company v. Fitch 541 P.2d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Amtitle Trust Company v. Fitch 541 P.2d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
See, for example: , (trust funds) ; , (action to establish trust) ; , 259 P. 886 (1927) (insolvency) ; , 180 P. 446 (1919) (insolvency).
State Ex Rel. Lassen v. Self-Realization Fellowship Church 517 P.2d 1280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
State Land Department v. TUCSON ROCK AND SAND CO. 469 P.2d 85 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
State Land Department v. TUCSON ROCK AND SAND CO. 469 P.2d 85 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
it was said: “This Enabling Act was accepted by the people of Arizona (par.
State Land Department v. Painted Desert Park, Inc. 416 P.2d 989 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
State Land Department v. Painted Desert Park, Inc. 416 P.2d 989 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
State v. Coerver 412 P.2d 259 Ariz. 1966
State Ex Rel. Arizona Highway Department v. Lassen 407 P.2d 747 Ariz. 1965
State Ex Rel. Arizona Highway Department v. Lassen 407 P.2d 747 Ariz. 1965
the late Justice LaPrade set forth an able and scholarly history of the Enabling Act.
Columbia Investment Co. v. M. M. Sundt Construction Co. 400 P.2d 132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Columbia Investment Co. v. M. M. Sundt Construction Co. 400 P.2d 132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Murphy v. Leiber 259 P.2d 249 Ariz. 1953
Murphy v. Leiber 259 P.2d 249 Ariz. 1953