Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Grounds v. Lawe, 193 P.2d 447.
- Daniel Lachance, Henry Stephen Conroy v. County of Cochise Cochise County Jail District Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
- Daniel Lachance, Henry Stephen Conroy v. County of Cochise Cochise County Jail District Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
- Staci Burk v. Doug Ducey Ariz. 2021
- Staci Burk v. Doug Ducey Ariz. 2021
- Sherman v. City of Tempe 24 P.3d 1285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
-
Sherman v. City of Tempe
24 P.3d 1285
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
The sixteenth illegal voter was a convicted felon whose electoral rights were unrestored.”); -85 , -53 (1948) (applying the proportional deduction rule to an election in which nonresidents had been permitted to vote); *197 Clay, 160 Ariz. at 338-39 , 773 P.2d at 236-37 (applying the proportional deduction rule to a case in which nonresidents had been permitted to vote).
- Huggins v. Superior Court 788 P.2d 81 Ariz. 1990
-
Huggins v. Superior Court
788 P.2d 81
Ariz. 1990
*352 THE GROUNDS RULE Oddly, we find a better alternative in a case that this court issued in the same year as Morgan—
- Clay v. Town of Gilbert 773 P.2d 233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
- Clay v. Town of Gilbert 773 P.2d 233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
- Barrera v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 573 P.2d 928 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
-
Barrera v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC.
573 P.2d 928
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
602 , Brown v. Superior Court, In and for County of Santa Cruz
- State v. Ferrari 541 P.2d 921 Ariz. 1975
-
State v. Ferrari
541 P.2d 921
Ariz. 1975
P. 351 modified on other grounds , 241 P. 514 (1925)
- Harbel Oil Company v. Steele 402 P.2d 436 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
-
Harbel Oil Company v. Steele
402 P.2d 436
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Our court has stated: “This court has always construed our statutes in regard to amendments with a great deal of liberality even when the amendment was offered on a new trial after an appeal.” at 186
- Griffin v. Buzard 342 P.2d 201 Ariz. 1959
-
Griffin v. Buzard
342 P.2d 201
Ariz. 1959
to a state office at a primary election, * * At the outset it is well to note the settled rule in this state is that “election contests are purely statutory, unknown to the common law, and are neither actions at law nor suits in equity, but are special proceedings.” See, , ; , ; , ; , 273 P. 10 .
- Harless v. Lockwood 332 P.2d 887 Ariz. 1958
- Harless v. Lockwood 332 P.2d 887 Ariz. 1958
- Brown v. Superior Court 303 P.2d 990 Ariz. 1956
-
Brown v. Superior Court
303 P.2d 990
Ariz. 1956
It is fundamental that rules governing election contests are purely statutory, , , and this statement appears in 29 C.J.S., Elections, § 259: “Requirements as to the time within which the contest must be brought are regarded as mandatory, and unless strictly complied with the court is without jurisdiction to proceed.” (Emphasis supplied.)
- Matsumato v. Arizona Sand and Rock Company 295 P.2d 850 Ariz. 1956
- Matsumato v. Arizona Sand and Rock Company 295 P.2d 850 Ariz. 1956
- Kauzlarich v. Board of Trustees of Oak Creek School District Number 16 278 P.2d 888 Ariz. 1955
- Kauzlarich v. Board of Trustees of Oak Creek School District Number 16 278 P.2d 888 Ariz. 1955
- Covington v. Basich Bros. Const. Co. 233 P.2d 837 Ariz. 1951