Cited by

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

58 citing documents.

Cox v. Superior Court 237 P.2d 820 Ariz. 1951
wherein it was stated: “We believe the rule of construction which requires the finding of express authorization is inappropriate when applied to the Constitution of the State of Arizona, and by the great weight of authority throughout the United States, it is not applicable to the construction of
Peters v. Frye 223 P.2d 176 Ariz. 1950
Peters v. Frye 223 P.2d 176 Ariz. 1950
Ordinarily this coercive remedy is invoked to compel the doing of a purely ministerial act; , ; , 127 P. 727 ; , , however within certain well-defined limitations the writ will also issue where there has been an abuse of discretion.
Board of Regents of University & State Colleges v. Frohmiller 208 P.2d 833 Ariz. 1949
Barry v. Phoenix Union High School 197 P.2d 533 Ariz. 1948
Barry v. Phoenix Union High School 197 P.2d 533 Ariz. 1948
In support of this position we are cited to a score of cases, from this jurisdiction where creditors have brought mandamus actions against the State Auditor, , ; Ear *387 , .
Concini v. Sullivan 188 P.2d 592 Ariz. 1948
Concini v. Sullivan 188 P.2d 592 Ariz. 1948
we again had occasion to examine this concept of our Constitution.