Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Associated Dairy Products Co. v. Page, 206 P.2d 1041.

42 citing documents.

Horne v. Hobbs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Horne v. Hobbs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
McMichael-gombar v. Phoenix Civil Service Ariz. 2023
McMichael-gombar v. Phoenix Civil Service Ariz. 2023
Harold Vangilder v. ador/pinal County Ariz. 2022
Harold Vangilder v. ador/pinal County Ariz. 2022
(explaining “[t]he boards of supervisors of the various counties of the state have only such powers as have been expressly or by necessary implication, delegated to them by the state legislature” in case involving county ordinance regulating milk and milk products); Ponderosa Fire Dist.
Az Public Integrity v. Adrian Fontes Ariz. 2020
Az Public Integrity v. Adrian Fontes Ariz. 2020
State Ex Rel Brnovich v. City of tucson/dewit 399 P.3d 663 Ariz. 2017
State Ex Rel Brnovich v. City of tucson/dewit 399 P.3d 663 Ariz. 2017
v. Page, -97, 400-01 , (noting “concern of the state in the exercise of its police powers” and holding that regulation of milk products was within scope of statewide concern for public health); , 471 ¶ 17, (“Arizona court
Ponderosa v. Coconino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Ponderosa v. Coconino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Payne Nelson Daniels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Payne 225 P.3d 1131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Payne 225 P.3d 1131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
quoting Fergus v. Brady, 277 Ill.
State of Arizona v. Payne Nelson Daniels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
quoting Fergus v. Brady, 115 N.E.
Hounshell v. White 202 P.3d 466 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Hounshell v. White 202 P.3d 466 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Home Builders Association v. City of Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Home Builders Association v. City of Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
(“[B]oards of supervisors of the various counties of [Arizona] have only such powers as have been expressly or by necessary implication, delegated to them by the state legislature.”); Home Builders Ass’n of Cent.
City of Tucson v. Pima County 949 P.2d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
City of Tucson v. Pima County 949 P.2d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Southwest Gas Corp. v. Mohave County 937 P.2d 696 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Southwest Gas Corp. v. Mohave County 937 P.2d 696 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Maricopa County v. Maricopa County Mun.
Marsoner v. Pima County 803 P.2d 897 Ariz. 1991
Marsoner v. Pima County 803 P.2d 897 Ariz. 1991
Maricopa County v. Black, 19 Ariz.App.
Marsoner v. Pima County 801 P.2d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Marsoner v. Pima County 801 P.2d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
for the purpose of exercising a certain portion of the general powers of the government in specified localities.”
Transamerica Title Insurance Co. v. Cochise County 548 P.2d 416 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Transamerica Title Insurance Co. v. Cochise County 548 P.2d 416 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Owens v. GLENARM LAND COMPANY, INC. 539 P.2d 544 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Owens v. GLENARM LAND COMPANY, INC. 539 P.2d 544 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Maricopa County v. Black 506 P.2d 279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Maricopa County v. Black 506 P.2d 279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Hart v. Bayless Investment & Trading Co., , Hartford, supra.
Robinson v. Lintz 420 P.2d 923 Ariz. 1966
Hart v. Bayless Investment & Trading Company 346 P.2d 1101 Ariz. 1959
Hart v. Bayless Investment & Trading Company 346 P.2d 1101 Ariz. 1959
Hartford Accident & , ; , ; , 158 P.
City of Flagstaff v. Associated Dairy Products Co. 255 P.2d 191 Ariz. 1953
City of Flagstaff v. Associated Dairy Products Co. 255 P.2d 191 Ariz. 1953
1043: “Implied powers do not exist independently of the grant of express powers and the only function of an implied power is to aid in carrying into effect a power expressly granted.
Dennis v. Jordan 229 P.2d 692 Ariz. 1951
Loftus v. Russell 212 P.2d 91 Ariz. 1949
Loftus v. Russell 212 P.2d 91 Ariz. 1949
No. 1 v. Board of Health, 1919, , 179 P. 55 , , decided June 6, 1949 (7 days before the information was filed in this case).