Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Millett v. Frohmiller, 188 P.2d 457.

50 citing documents.

Robin Roebuck v. Mayo Clinic Ariz. 2025
Robin Roebuck v. Mayo Clinic Ariz. 2025
¶ 37 (2021) (–43 (1948)).
Az Petition Partners v. Hon. thompson/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Az Petition Partners v. Hon. thompson/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
C. Severability ¶42 The law concerning the severability of statutes is “well settled.”
Karen Fann v. State of Arizona 493 P.3d 246 Ariz. 2021
Karen Fann v. State of Arizona 493 P.3d 246 Ariz. 2021
–43 (1948) (citation omitted).
State v. Pandeli 161 P.3d 557 Ariz. 2007
State v. Pandeli 161 P.3d 557 Ariz. 2007
Forty-Seventh Legislature v. Napolitano 143 P.3d 1023 Ariz. 2006
Forty-Seventh Legislature v. Napolitano 143 P.3d 1023 Ariz. 2006
The utmost that can be claimed for the act under consideration is that it pledges the good faith of the state to the making of an appropriation.”); (noting that statute authorizing agency to employ persons did not itself constitute an appropriation).
Bill Parrot v. Daimlerchrysler Corporation Ariz. 2006
Bill Parrot v. Daimlerchrysler Corporation Ariz. 2006
Parrot v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. 130 P.3d 530 Ariz. 2006
Parrot v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. 130 P.3d 530 Ariz. 2006
McComb v. Superior Court 943 P.2d 878 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
McComb v. Superior Court 943 P.2d 878 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State Compensation Fund v. Symington 848 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1993
State Compensation Fund v. Symington 848 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1993
justify the conclusion that the legislature intended them as a whole and would not have enacted a part only.” , (quoting 59 C.J.S.
Norton v. Superior Court 829 P.2d 345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Norton v. Superior Court 829 P.2d 345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
“[T]he valid part of a statute will be sustained where the valid and invalid parts are so separate and distinct that it is clear or may be presumed that the legislature would have enacted the former without the latter, if it had known of the invalidity____” , ( , ), cert.
Estate of Hernandez v. Arizona Board of Regents 838 P.2d 1283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Estate of Hernandez v. Arizona Board of Regents 838 P.2d 1283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
SEVERABILITY The rule on severability is that the remaining part of a statute will be held valid if it is “ ‘so separate and distinct that it is clear or may be presumed that the legislature would have enacted the former without the latter, if it had known of the invalidity____’” , quoting 59 C.J. Statutes § 206.
Benjamin v. Arizona Department of Revenue 786 P.2d 1033 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Benjamin v. Arizona Department of Revenue 786 P.2d 1033 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
-343 , where our supreme court stated: The law concerning the severability of statutes is well settled.
State v. Watson 586 P.2d 1253 Ariz. 1978
State v. Watson 586 P.2d 1253 Ariz. 1978
The test is whether or not the legislature would have passed the statute had it been presented with the invalid features removed.’ (citation omitted)” -43
Eastin v. Broomfield 570 P.2d 744 Ariz. 1977
Eastin v. Broomfield 570 P.2d 744 Ariz. 1977
State Ex Rel. Berger v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN AND FOR COUNTY OF MARICOPA 476 P.2d 666 Ariz. 1970
State Ex Rel. Berger v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN AND FOR COUNTY OF MARICOPA 476 P.2d 666 Ariz. 1970
146 P. 494 ; Alabam’s , 242 P. 658 ; , .
Board of Supervisors, Pima County v. Robinson 457 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Board of Supervisors, Pima County v. Robinson 457 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Alabam’s , 242 P. 658 ; , 194 P. 1101 ; , 146 P. 494 .” 101 Ariz., at 599 , 422 P.2d, at 715 .
Iman v. Southern Pacific Company 435 P.2d 851 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Iman v. Southern Pacific Company 435 P.2d 851 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
The test is whether or not the legislature would have passed the statute had it been presented with the invalid features removed.”
Selective Life Insurance v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States 422 P.2d 710 Ariz. 1967
Selective Life Insurance v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States 422 P.2d 710 Ariz. 1967
Alabam’s , 242 P. 658 ; , 194 P. 1101 ; , 146 P. 494 .
Barbee v. Holbrook 371 P.2d 886 Ariz. 1962
Barbee v. Holbrook 371 P.2d 886 Ariz. 1962
McCune v. City of Phoenix 317 P.2d 537 Ariz. 1957
McCune v. City of Phoenix 317 P.2d 537 Ariz. 1957
146 P. 494 ; Alabam’s , 242 P. 658 ; , .
Hudson v. Kelly 263 P.2d 362 Ariz. 1953
Hudson v. Kelly 263 P.2d 362 Ariz. 1953
Such was our holding in Millett v. Frohmiller, 66 Ariz. *275 339, .
Adams v. Bolin 247 P.2d 617 Ariz. 1952
Adams v. Bolin 247 P.2d 617 Ariz. 1952
State v. Coursey 225 P.2d 713 Ariz. 1950
State v. Coursey 225 P.2d 713 Ariz. 1950
City of Phoenix v. Yates 208 P.2d 1147 Ariz. 1949
City of Phoenix v. Yates 208 P.2d 1147 Ariz. 1949
254 ; , ; , ; In re Stark’s Estate, , ; , .
Ethington v. Wright 189 P.2d 209 Ariz. 1948
Ethington v. Wright 189 P.2d 209 Ariz. 1948