Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite City of Glendale v. White, 194 P.2d 435.

40 citing documents.

Darcie Schires v. Cathy Carlat 480 P.3d 639 Ariz. 2021
Darcie Schires v. Cathy Carlat 480 P.3d 639 Ariz. 2021
(stating that the term “is incapable of exact definition,” changes with the times, and is best elucidated by examples).
Schires v. Carlat Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Schires v. Carlat Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
ft Clause attack on public agency’s issuance of industrial development bonds); 6 SCHIRES, et al. v. CARLAT, et al. Decision of the Court (finding public purpose in constructing a water line serving just one factory)); (city acted with a public purpose when joining municipal league); (slum clearance program served a public purpose).
cheatham/huey v. Diciccio/phoenix Law Enforcement Association 379 P.3d 211 Ariz. 2016
cheatham/huey v. Diciccio/phoenix Law Enforcement Association 379 P.3d 211 Ariz. 2016
at 348 ¶ 23, 224 P.3d at 164 (finding that the purchase of parking spaces constituted a public purpose); , (finding that city acted with a public purpose when it joined the Arizona Municipal League); , (finding that slum clearance program served public purpose).
Anderson v. Prescott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Anderson v. Prescott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
To determine whether a city’s expenditure of public funds is for a public purpose, the court will refer to “the object sought to be accomplished” and “the degree and manner in which that object affects the public welfare.” (citation omitted).
Turken v. Gordon 224 P.3d 158 Ariz. 2010
Turken v. Gordon 224 P.3d 158 Ariz. 2010
Turken v. Gordon 207 P.3d 709 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Turken v. Gordon 207 P.3d 709 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Co., , (upholding five percent preference granted to contractors who had paid county and state taxes for two years immediately preceding making a bid); 238, 240 , 440, 441 (1948) (holding that payment of dues for a municipal league was for a public purpose when the league fostered the adoption of sound methods of municipal government, administration, and conduct of municipal affairs among other things); -
Home Builders Ass'n v. City of Apache Junction 11 P.3d 1032 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Home Builders Ass'n v. City of Apache Junction 11 P.3d 1032 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
(Bernstein, J., specially concurring) (“Where a municipal corporation is involved, specific legislative authority must be found for all of its activities.”); Shaffer v. Allt, 25 Ariz.App.
Maricopa County v. State 928 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Maricopa County v. State 928 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Our supreme court has said that “the term ‘public purpose’ is incapable of exact definition and changes to meet new developments and conditions of times — ”
Maricopa County v. Maricopa County Municipal Water Conservation District No. 1 830 P.2d 846 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Maricopa County v. Maricopa County Municipal Water Conservation District No. 1 830 P.2d 846 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Wistuber v. Paradise Valley Unified School District 687 P.2d 354 Ariz. 1984
Wistuber v. Paradise Valley Unified School District 687 P.2d 354 Ariz. 1984
this court stated “the term ‘public purpose’ is incapable of exact definition and changes to meet new developments and conditions of times____” The services performed by the Association President aid the District in performing its obligations.
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
245 P. 677 (1926); , 3 Yokley Municipal Corporations, § 54 at 107 (1958).
Heiner v. City of Mesa 515 P.2d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Heiner v. City of Mesa 515 P.2d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Even had the reserve funds been the property of, Mesa and thus public funds, which we hold they are not, , which approved the use of public funds for the payment of dues to the Arizona Municipal League for the education of the governing body of the City, is authority for expenditures to secure expert advice similar to the Hamilton-report.
Town of Gila Bend v. Walled Lake Door Company 490 P.2d 551 Ariz. 1971
Town of Gila Bend v. Walled Lake Door Company 490 P.2d 551 Ariz. 1971
In determining whether a proposed expenditure of public funds is constitutionally valid as being devoted to a public use or purpose no hard and fast rule can be formulated, and each such case “must be decided with reference to the object sought to be accomplished and to the degree and manner in which that object affects the public welfare.” at 237 , at 439 (1948).
Vallentine v. Azar 445 P.2d 449 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Vallentine v. Azar 445 P.2d 449 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
and, , the plaintiff asks this court to overrule Collier v. Stamatis, supra, if we find it impossible to distinguish it.
Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. City of Tombstone 401 P.2d 753 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. City of Tombstone 401 P.2d 753 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Local 266, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District 275 P.2d 393 Ariz. 1954
Local 266, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District 275 P.2d 393 Ariz. 1954
City of Glendale v. White, 1948, , ; Walton et ux.
Bristor v. Cheatham 240 P.2d 185 Ariz. 1952
Bristor v. Cheatham 240 P.2d 185 Ariz. 1952
4 A.L.R.2d 735 ; , ; Calhoun Gold Min.
Gardner v. Industrial Commission 233 P.2d 833 Ariz. 1951
Gardner v. Industrial Commission 233 P.2d 833 Ariz. 1951
Board of Regents of University & State Colleges v. Frohmiller 208 P.2d 833 Ariz. 1949
Board of Regents of University & State Colleges v. Frohmiller 208 P.2d 833 Ariz. 1949
828; Frohmiller v. Board of Regents, 1946, , ; City of Glendale v. White, 1948, , .
State v. Allred 195 P.2d 163 Ariz. 1948
State v. Allred 195 P.2d 163 Ariz. 1948