Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Garvey v. Trew, 170 P.2d 845.

34 citing documents.

Az Free Enterprise Club v. Katie Hobbs Ariz. 2022
Az Free Enterprise Club v. Katie Hobbs Ariz. 2022
The trial court, ruled that SB 1828 did not qualify for exemption as an appropriation measure.
Stevenson v. Harmon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Stevenson v. Harmon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(Citing an accepted definition of “emergency” as “[a] sudden unexpected happening; an unforeseen occurrence or condition; specifically, a perplexing contingency or complication of circumstances; a sudden or unexpected occasion for action; exigency; pressing necessity.”).
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
¶25 Construing this provision, our supreme court held “that the framers of the constitution and the people who voted for its adoption understood and intended that appropriations for the support and maintenance of the departments of the state government and state institutions were not to be subject to the referendum.” 355 (1946) (explaining that appropriations are exempt from the referendum power “when made in support and maintenance of the existing functions of the department or institution”); c
Ruco v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Residential Utility Consumer Office v. Arizona Corp. Commission 355 P.3d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Residential Utility Consumer Office v. Arizona Corp. Commission 355 P.3d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
See, , (“The word ‘emergency1 has a well understood meaning.
Ruco v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
See, (“The word ‘emergency’ has a well understood meaning.
Arizona Consumers Council v. Arizona Corp. Commission 22 P.3d 905 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Arizona Consumers Council v. Arizona Corp. Commission 22 P.3d 905 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
See Garvey v. Trew, 64 *-47 , (noting that Commission has constitutional power to enter into contracts with the Federal Power Commission for co-operation under the Federal Power Act).
Wade v. Greenlee County 844 P.2d 629 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Wade v. Greenlee County 844 P.2d 629 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
284 , 295 (1943); , State ex rel.
Arizona Corp. Commission v. State Ex Rel. Woods 830 P.2d 807 Ariz. 1992
Arizona Corp. Commission v. State Ex Rel. Woods 830 P.2d 807 Ariz. 1992
Other cases have recognized that the Commission constitutionally “may exercise all powers which may be necessary or essential in connection with the performance of its duties.” -47 , , cert.
Arizona Water Co. v. Arizona Department of Water Resources 770 P.2d 370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Arizona Water Co. v. Arizona Department of Water Resources 770 P.2d 370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Town of Chino Valley v. City of Prescott 638 P.2d 1324 Ariz. 1981
Town of Chino Valley v. City of Prescott 638 P.2d 1324 Ariz. 1981
Arizona Corporation Commission v. Superior Court 459 P.2d 489 Ariz. 1969
Arizona Corporation Commission v. Superior Court 459 P.2d 489 Ariz. 1969
Selective Life Insurance v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States 422 P.2d 710 Ariz. 1967
Selective Life Insurance v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States 422 P.2d 710 Ariz. 1967
Skaggs Drug Center, Inc. v. United States Time Corp. 420 P.2d 177 Ariz. 1966
Skaggs Drug Center, Inc. v. United States Time Corp. 420 P.2d 177 Ariz. 1966
Austin v. Campbell 370 P.2d 769 Ariz. 1962
Austin v. Campbell 370 P.2d 769 Ariz. 1962
“It is not for us to say that the legislature did not act properly.” -48 , , cert.
Bohannan v. Corporation Commission 313 P.2d 379 Ariz. 1957
Bohannan v. Corporation Commission 313 P.2d 379 Ariz. 1957
certiorari denied 329 U.S. 784 , 67 S.Ct.
Hunt v. Norton 198 P.2d 124 Ariz. 1948
Hunt v. Norton 198 P.2d 124 Ariz. 1948
Ethington v. Wright 189 P.2d 209 Ariz. 1948
Ethington v. Wright 189 P.2d 209 Ariz. 1948