Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Beach v. Superior Court of Apache County, 173 P.2d 79.

36 citing documents.

Paloma v. Srvwua Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Paloma v. Srvwua Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Id.; (holding parties with prior appropriations may not appeal the commissioner's grant of an appropriation permit because the commissioner does not have jurisdiction to determine priority).
Novak v. State 792 P.2d 293 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Novak v. State 792 P.2d 293 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Lake Havasu City v. Mohave County 675 P.2d 1371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Lake Havasu City v. Mohave County 675 P.2d 1371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Buhler v. Adkins 607 P.2d 956 Ariz. 1980
Buhler v. Adkins 607 P.2d 956 Ariz. 1980
In this regard, , [i]t will be presumed that the legislature, in adopting the amendment, intended to make some change in the existing law, and therefore the courts will endeavor to *82 give some effect to the amendment, (citation omitted).
Gamet v. Glenn 455 P.2d 967 Ariz. 1969
Gamet v. Glenn 455 P.2d 967 Ariz. 1969
The reasoning of this Court, , is pertinent to our present determination of petitioner’s standing to intervene.
In Re Cutshaw 432 P.2d 474 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
In Re Cutshaw 432 P.2d 474 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Brown v. White 408 P.2d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Brown v. White 408 P.2d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Our Supreme Court has said: “As we said in Beach v. Superior Court of Apache County, 1946, , , there is a duty on the courts ‘to give effect’ to statutory amendments since it is presumed that the legislature by amending a statute intends to make a change in existing law.”
Woolsey v. Lassen 371 P.2d 587 Ariz. 1962
Woolsey v. Lassen 371 P.2d 587 Ariz. 1962
This is true, but the Legislature by the Act of 1945 presumably wished to change the law and if possible the court should give some effect to it if the purpose is reasonably ascertainable
Arizona State Land Department v. McFate 348 P.2d 912 Ariz. 1960
Arizona State Land Department v. McFate 348 P.2d 912 Ariz. 1960
This rule has been applied and prohibition has issued where the lower court erred in refusing to dismiss an appeal which the appellant did not have a right to institute before such court ( , ), and where indispensable parties were not properly before the lower court ( , ; , ).
Trump v. Badet 327 P.2d 1001 Ariz. 1958
Trump v. Badet 327 P.2d 1001 Ariz. 1958
Mullen v. Gross 326 P.2d 33 Ariz. 1958
Mullen v. Gross 326 P.2d 33 Ariz. 1958
Ernst v. Superior Court of Apache County 307 P.2d 911 Ariz. 1957
Ernst v. Superior Court of Apache County 307 P.2d 911 Ariz. 1957
Ross v. Industrial Commission 307 P.2d 612 Ariz. 1957
Ross v. Industrial Commission 307 P.2d 612 Ariz. 1957
Finch v. State Department of Public Welfare 295 P.2d 846 Ariz. 1956
Finch v. State Department of Public Welfare 295 P.2d 846 Ariz. 1956
As we said in Beach v. Superior Court of Apache County, 1946, , , there is a duty on the courts “to give effect” to statutory amendments since it is presumed that the legislature by amending a statute intends to make a change in existing law.
Cox v. Superior Court 237 P.2d 820 Ariz. 1951
Cox v. Superior Court 237 P.2d 820 Ariz. 1951
(Citing cases.)” Counsel for petitioner might be correct in branding this statement *96 as dicta in that case, but the same principle has been reiterated in the following cases: , 283 P. 726 ; , ; , .
State v. Phelps 193 P.2d 921 Ariz. 1948
State v. Phelps 193 P.2d 921 Ariz. 1948
254 P. 225 ; , 283 P. 726 ; , .
D. W. Onan & Sons, Inc. v. Superior Court 179 P.2d 243 Ariz. 1947
D. W. Onan & Sons, Inc. v. Superior Court 179 P.2d 243 Ariz. 1947
Duncan v. Superior Court of Pinal County 177 P.2d 374 Ariz. 1947
Duncan v. Superior Court of Pinal County 177 P.2d 374 Ariz. 1947
In order to exercise that right, a party must bring himself within the conditions prescribed by the statute conferring the right, otherwise he has no right of appeal.” , 154 P. 206 ; , .