Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Earhart v. Frohmiller, 178 P.2d 436.

58 citing documents.

Robin Roebuck v. Mayo Clinic Ariz. 2025
Robin Roebuck v. Mayo Clinic Ariz. 2025
The Arizona Constitution, unlike the Federal Constitution, is not “a grant of power or enabling act to the Legislature, but rather is a limitation upon the powers of that body.”
Center for Az Policy v. Az Secretary of State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Center for Az Policy v. Az Secretary of State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
see also Ariz. Const. art. II, § 33 (“The enumeration in this Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny others retained by the people.”).
Biggs v. Cooper 341 P.3d 457 Ariz. 2014
biggs/tobin v. Hon. cooper/brewer/betlach Ariz. 2014
Biggs v. Cooper 341 P.3d 457 Ariz. 2014
v. Ducey, , 5 ¶ 13, , ).
biggs/tobin v. Hon. cooper/brewer/betlach Ariz. 2014
Biggs v. cooper/brewer 323 P.3d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Biggs v. cooper/brewer 323 P.3d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(explaining that “state constitutions are not grants of power, but instead are limitations thereof”); ¶ 13, (observing “[o]ur state constitution, unlike the federal constitution, does not grant power
Cave Creek Unified School District v. Ducey 308 P.3d 1152 Ariz. 2013
Cave Creek Unified School District v. Ducey 308 P.3d 1152 Ariz. 2013
–38 (1947) (noting that “the whole power not prohibited by the state and Federal constitutions is retained in the people and their elected representatives”); see also Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 33 (“The enumeration in this Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny others retained
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Mathis 290 P.3d 1226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Mathis 290 P.3d 1226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
(“The Legislature is vested with the whole of the legislative power of the state, and may deal with any subject within the scope of civil government unless it is restrained by the provisions of the Constitution ....” (citation omitted)).
ARIZONA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION v. Brewer 243 P.3d 619 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
ARIZONA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION v. Brewer 243 P.3d 619 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
When a legislative enactment is challenged, the courts “must find that the [a]et is clearly prohibited by either the Federal Constitution or the Constitution of Arizona in order to hold it invalid.”
Brewer v. Burns 213 P.3d 671 Ariz. 2009
Citizens Clean Elections Commission v. Myers 1 P.3d 706 Ariz. 2000
Citizens Clean Elections Commission v. Myers 1 P.3d 706 Ariz. 2000
for the proposition that unless the constitution expressly denies the legislature a particular power, it has it.
Randolph v. Groscost 989 P.2d 751 Ariz. 1999
Randolph v. Groscost 989 P.2d 751 Ariz. 1999
we decided whether “granting to the legislators an allowance for subsistence and lodging constitutes an improper increase in their compensation.” Id.
Fiesta Mall Venture v. Mecham Recall Committee 767 P.2d 719 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Fiesta Mall Venture v. Mecham Recall Committee 767 P.2d 719 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
that our constitution “is not, as is the Constitution of the United States, to be considered a grant of power or enabling act to the Legislature, but rather is a limitation upon the power of that body....” Accord, Hart v. Bayless Investment & Trading Co.
Arizona Podiatry Ass'n v. Director of Insurance 422 P.2d 108 Ariz. 1966
Arizona Podiatry Ass'n v. Director of Insurance 422 P.2d 108 Ariz. 1966
Turner v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN AND FOR COUNTY FOR PIMA 415 P.2d 129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Turner v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN AND FOR COUNTY FOR PIMA 415 P.2d 129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Austin v. Campbell 370 P.2d 769 Ariz. 1962
Austin v. Campbell 370 P.2d 769 Ariz. 1962
wherein this legislation was held not to run counter to art. 4, pt.
Forman v. Creighton School District No. 14 351 P.2d 165 Ariz. 1960
Forman v. Creighton School District No. 14 351 P.2d 165 Ariz. 1960
.” If we found, as the respondents contend, that A.R.S.
Hart v. Bayless Investment & Trading Company 346 P.2d 1101 Ariz. 1959
Hart v. Bayless Investment & Trading Company 346 P.2d 1101 Ariz. 1959
State Board of Technical Registration v. McDaniel 326 P.2d 348 Ariz. 1958
State Board of Technical Registration v. Bauer 326 P.2d 358 Ariz. 1958
State Board of Technical Registration v. Bauer 326 P.2d 358 Ariz. 1958
§ 12-2021; , ; Adams v. Bolin, *240 , .
State Board of Technical Registration v. McDaniel 326 P.2d 348 Ariz. 1958
Giss v. Jordan 309 P.2d 779 Ariz. 1957
Giss v. Jordan 309 P.2d 779 Ariz. 1957
Brown v. Superior Court 303 P.2d 990 Ariz. 1956
Brown v. Superior Court 303 P.2d 990 Ariz. 1956
224, ; , ; Adams v. Bolin, supra, 74 Ariz. at page 283 , ; State v. Osborne, supra.
Brown v. City of Phoenix 272 P.2d 358 Ariz. 1954
Brown v. City of Phoenix 272 P.2d 358 Ariz. 1954
Ordinarily this coercive remedy is invoked to compel the doing of a purely ministerial act; e. g., , ; , 127 P. 727 ; , , however within certain well-defined limitations the writ will also issue where there has been an abuse of discretion.
Adams v. Bolin 271 P.2d 472 Ariz. 1954
Adams v. Bolin 271 P.2d 472 Ariz. 1954
For a comparable precedent, , .
Adams v. Bolin 247 P.2d 617 Ariz. 1952
State v. Harold 246 P.2d 178 Ariz. 1952
State v. Harold 246 P.2d 178 Ariz. 1952
Adams v. Bolin 247 P.2d 617 Ariz. 1952
More recently, in considering the constitutionality of a statute authorizing the reimbursement of personal expenses of members of the Legislature, this court, -225 , -438 , considered the whole question in extenso and in part said: “Some of the courts which held such acts invalid have done so because the state constitutions in question provided no express authorization for such legislation.
Cox v. Superior Court 237 P.2d 820 Ariz. 1951

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by