Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Mayor Common Council of City of Prescott v. Randall, 196 P.2d 477.

39 citing documents.

Victor Sanchez-Ravuelta Janette Dodge v. Yavapai County Town of Dewey-Humboldt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
Victor Sanchez-Ravuelta Janette Dodge v. Yavapai County Town of Dewey-Humboldt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
As our jurisprudence has long acknowledged, the Department established “state-wide control over the traffic in intoxicating liquors” to address “the many inherent evils attending the traffic [of alcohol] and the abuses arising therefrom when not regulated.” Mayor & -75 (1948).
State of Arizona v. City of Tucson Ariz. 2021
State of Arizona v. City of Tucson Ariz. 2021
rcises authority] is of state-wide concern, and the Legislature has appropriated the field and declared the rule, its declaration is binding throughout the state”); Walker, 60 Ariz. at 239 (“[W]here the legislative act deals with a strictly local municipal concern, it can have no application to a city which has adopted a home rule charter.”); Mayor & (collecting cases establishing “that a charter city is sovereign in all of its ‘municipal affairs’ where the power .
State Ex Rel Brnovich v. City of tucson/dewit 399 P.3d 663 Ariz. 2017
City of Tucson v. State 250 P.3d 251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
City of Tucson v. State 250 P.3d 251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
4 See id.; , (charter city sovereign in municipal affairs); City of Tuc *479 , (“ ‘The purpose of the home rule charter provision of the Constitution was to render the cities adopting such charter provisions as nearly independent of state leg
McMann v. City of Tucson 47 P.3d 672 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
McMann v. City of Tucson 47 P.3d 672 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
to be exercised has been specifically or by implication granted in its charter.’ ”
City of Casa Grande v. Arizona Water Co. 20 P.3d 590 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
City of Casa Grande v. Arizona Water Co. 20 P.3d 590 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
(“complete and comprehensive code” governing liquor licensing evinces legislative intent for statewide control over subject matter).
City of Tucson v. Consumers for Retail Choice 5 P.2d 934 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
City of Tucson v. Consumers for Retail Choice 5 P.2d 934 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
1, § 1(8); Strode, 72 Ariz. at 363 , 236 P.2d at 50
Babe's Cabaret v. City of Scottsdale 3 P.3d 1018 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Babe's Cabaret v. City of Scottsdale 3 P.3d 1018 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
See Mayor & -75 , -81 (1948).
Union Transportes De Nogales v. City of Nogales 985 P.2d 1025 Ariz. 1999
Union Transportes De Nogales v. City of Nogales 985 P.2d 1025 Ariz. 1999
See Mayor & , (“The right to exact an occupational tax is purely a matter of local concern.”).
Whiteco Outdoor Advertising v. City of Tucson 972 P.2d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Whiteco Outdoor Advertising v. City of Tucson 972 P.2d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
quoting Mayor & , (“a charter city is sovereign in all of its ‘municipal affairs’ where the power ...
Ah v. Arizona Prop. and Cas. Ins. Guar. 943 P.2d 738 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Ah v. Arizona Prop. and Cas. Ins. Guar. 943 P.2d 738 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
A.H. v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund 943 P.2d 738 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
A.H. v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund 943 P.2d 738 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Shaffer v. Allt 545 P.2d 76 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Shaffer v. Allt 545 P.2d 76 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Longbridge Investment Company v. Moore 533 P.2d 564 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Longbridge Investment Company v. Moore 533 P.2d 564 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
State Ex Rel. De Concini v. Gatewood 458 P.2d 368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
State Ex Rel. De Concini v. Gatewood 458 P.2d 368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
it was held: “* * * that the city of Prescott may license and tax any person who has *276 been licensed to deal in intoxicating liquors by the superintendent of the department of liquor licenses and control, but that it may not refuse to issue a city license or limit the number of licenses, such
Lueck v. Superior Court in & for the County of Cochise 457 P.2d 348 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Lueck v. Superior Court in & for the County of Cochise 457 P.2d 348 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Kaufman v. City of Tucson 433 P.2d 282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Kaufman v. City of Tucson 433 P.2d 282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Salinas v. Kahn 407 P.2d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Salinas v. Kahn 407 P.2d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Mayor & Common Council *188
Peterson v. Flood 326 P.2d 845 Ariz. 1958
Peterson v. Flood 326 P.2d 845 Ariz. 1958
Reading the various sections of the statutes enumerated above, and under the clear duty of the courts to give meaningful operation to all its provisions, , ; , ; , 202 P. 391 ; we hold the legislature has granted to justice courts the power to suspend/the imposition of sentence and place defendants on probation.
Strode v. Sullivan 236 P.2d 48 Ariz. 1951
Strode v. Sullivan 236 P.2d 48 Ariz. 1951
In the case of Mayor & , , there was under consideration the charter of the city of Prescott.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by