Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Renck v. Superior Court of Maricopa County, 187 P.2d 656.

60 citing documents.

Az Free Enterprise Club v. Katie Hobbs Ariz. 2022
Az Free Enterprise Club v. Katie Hobbs Ariz. 2022
Judith K Lohr v. Shawnna Bolick 471 P.3d 639 Ariz. 2020
Judith K Lohr v. Shawnna Bolick 471 P.3d 639 Ariz. 2020
(“The purpose of requiring the signature of the circulator is so that if any question arises in which his testimony is needed, he can readily be found.”).
Chamber of Commerce v. Hon. kiley/state 399 P.3d 80 Ariz. 2017
Chamber of Commerce v. Hon. kiley/state 399 P.3d 80 Ariz. 2017
overruled, in part, (stating that whether to include initiative and referendum in our constitution “was a burning issue” at statehood and both the delegates and the voters considered its inclusion “among the most important” provisions).
Jenkins v. Hale 190 P.3d 175 Ariz. 2008
Jenkins v. Hale 190 P.3d 175 Ariz. 2008
“[T]he purpose for requiring the address of the petitioner is to afford a convenient method of checking whether [the person signing a petition] is a qualified elector.”
Feldmeier v. Watson 123 P.3d 180 Ariz. 2005
Feldmeier v. Watson 123 P.3d 180 Ariz. 2005
overruled, in part, -61 (1947).
Zajac v. City of Casa Grande 102 P.3d 297 Ariz. 2004
Zajac v. City of Casa Grande 102 P.3d 297 Ariz. 2004
before the election is held.’”) ( ); (refusing, after the vote, to invalidate a ballot initiative alleging defects that occurred in the process prior to the election); Renck v. Superior Court, 66 Ariz. 320, 326-27, -61 (1947)(same); (“[I]f parties allow an election to proceed in violation of the law which prescribes the manner in which it shall be held, they may not, after t
TANQUE VERDE UNIFIED SCHOOL v. Bernini 76 P.3d 874 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
TANQUE VERDE UNIFIED SCHOOL v. Bernini 76 P.3d 874 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Alliance Marana v. Groseclose 955 P.2d 43 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Alliance Marana v. Groseclose 955 P.2d 43 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
§ 19-141(C) requires that it “be as nearly as practicable the same as the procedure relating to initiative and referendum provided for the state at large.” Appellants’ , is similarly misplaced because that ease involved a statewide initiative, not a local one.
Pioneer Trust Co. v. Pima County 811 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1991
Kromko v. Superior Court 811 P.2d 12 Ariz. 1991
Kromko v. Superior Court 811 P.2d 12 Ariz. 1991
rior Court, this court recognized that no time limit is designated in what is now § 19-122(C) or anywhere else for applying to the superior court “for an injunction to restrain or enjoin the Secretary of State from certifying or the Clerks of the Boards of Supervisors from printing on the official ballot an initiated measure the petition for which the citizen believes to be legally insufficient.”
Pioneer Trust Co. v. Pima County 811 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1991
(question of whether Arizona’s constitution should reserve powers of initiative and referendum was “burning issue”; opinion of delegates who adopted and signed constitution was that powers of initiative and referendum were among the constitution’s most important provisions), overruled twice on other grounds, , , see also Leshy, The Making of the Arizona Constitution, 20 Ariz.St.L.J.
Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc. v. Coconino County 766 P.2d 83 Ariz. 1988
Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc. v. Coconino County 766 P.2d 83 Ariz. 1988
Another case, , (overruled on other grounds, , , ), dealt with the precise question presented here, holding that a voter who is registered in one precinct and who moves to another precinct during an open registration period without transferring his registration is not qualified to sign an initiative petition.
Mecham v. Gordon 751 P.2d 957 Ariz. 1988
Mecham v. Gordon 751 P.2d 957 Ariz. 1988
See Queen Creek Land & , -26 , -60 (1947)
Department of Revenue v. Arthur 734 P.2d 98 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Department of Revenue v. Arthur 734 P.2d 98 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Moore v. City of Page 713 P.2d 813 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Moore v. City of Page 713 P.2d 813 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Two of them, , , 130 P. 1114 (1913), were not election contests but were cases challenging the validity of particular laws by collaterally attacking the procedures by which the laws came to be voted on by the people.
Searles v. Strauch 716 P.2d 421 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Searles v. Strauch 716 P.2d 421 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
*54 , , , 130 P. 1114 (1913).
Blaine v. McSpadden 526 P.2d 390 Ariz. 1974
Blaine v. McSpadden 526 P.2d 390 Ariz. 1974
that a showing of insufficient signatures on a petition must be by “clear and convincing” evidence before a court is justified in keeping the name of a candidate off the ballot, and that doubts concerning the validity of signatures should be resolved in favor of the candidate.
Campbell v. SUPERIOR CT, IN & FOR CTY. OF MARICOPA 501 P.2d 463 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Campbell v. SUPERIOR CT, IN & FOR CTY. OF MARICOPA 501 P.2d 463 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Southwest Cooperative Wholesale v. Superior Court, 13 Ariz.App.
Direct Sellers Ass'n v. McBrayer 492 P.2d 727 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Direct Sellers Ass'n v. McBrayer 492 P.2d 727 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
( , : “The history of our Constitution and its adoption, to which we have previously referred, shows beyond the possibility of contradiction that the people themselves deliberately and intentionally announced that, by its adoption, they meant to exercise their supreme sovereign power directly to a far
Southwest Cooperative Wholesale v. Superior Court 477 P.2d 572 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Southwest Cooperative Wholesale v. Superior Court 477 P.2d 572 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Navajo Freight Lines, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance 471 P.2d 309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Navajo Freight Lines, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance 471 P.2d 309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Burke v. Gottfried, 7 Ariz.App.
County of Cochise v. Board of Supervisors of Cochise County 442 P.2d 129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
County of Cochise v. Board of Supervisors of Cochise County 442 P.2d 129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
an action was filed in the Superior Court to test the sufficiency of the signatures on an initiative petition.
Burke v. Gottfried 436 P.2d 488 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Burke v. Gottfried 436 P.2d 488 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Greater Arizona Savings and Loan Ass'n v. Tang 400 P.2d 121 Ariz. 1965
Greater Arizona Savings and Loan Ass'n v. Tang 400 P.2d 121 Ariz. 1965
Kemble v. Porter 357 P.2d 155 Ariz. 1960
Kemble v. Porter 357 P.2d 155 Ariz. 1960
Like the denial of a motion for summary judgment, , , it was a mere interlocutory order.
Griffin v. Buzard 342 P.2d 201 Ariz. 1959
Griffin v. Buzard 342 P.2d 201 Ariz. 1959
We do not deem the authorities cited in support thereof, , ; , , , , to be in point.