Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Hernandez v. Frohmiller, 204 P.2d 854.

93 citing documents.

Montenegro v. Fontes Ariz. 2025
Montenegro v. Fontes Ariz. 2025
As the Court stated categorically in Hernandez v. Frohmiller, “[i]t is axiomatic that neither the [L]egislature nor the people can delegate to an administrative board the power to legislate.”
State v. Peters Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Peters Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
To satisfy due process requirements, statutes must “contain explicit standards of application so as to prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.” ¶ 79 (App. 1999) (citing Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108-09 (1972); -52 (1949)).
Cave Creek Unified School District v. Ducey 295 P.3d 440 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Cave Creek Unified School District v. Ducey 295 P.3d 440 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
in support of its position.
State v. Regenold 249 P.3d 337 Ariz. 2011
VERMA v. Stuhr 221 P.3d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
VERMA v. Stuhr 221 P.3d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Kaiser , 204 at 517, ¶9, 65 P.3d at 466 .
Zajac v. City of Casa Grande 102 P.3d 297 Ariz. 2004
Zajac v. City of Casa Grande 102 P.3d 297 Ariz. 2004
v. Greene, (“[T]he procedures ‘leading up to an election cannot be questioned’ after the vote but ‘must be challenged before the election is held.’”) ( ); (refusing, after the vote, to invalidate a ballot initiative alleging defects that occurred in the process prior to the election); Renck v. Superior Court, 66 Ariz. 320, 326-27, -61 (1947)(same)
Redelsperger v. City of Avondale 87 P.3d 843 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Redelsperger v. City of Avondale 87 P.3d 843 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Only within such boundaries may the board act.”
McLoughlin Catalina v. Pima County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
McLoughlin Catalina v. Pima County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
P.2d 854 (1949); Flood Control Dist.
In Re the General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Gila River System & Source 35 P.3d 68 Ariz. 2001
In Re the General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Gila River System & Source 35 P.3d 68 Ariz. 2001
(taking judicial notice of census population data); State ex rel.
Martin v. Reinstein 987 P.2d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Martin v. Reinstein 987 P.2d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
2294 , 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972); -52
Ruiz v. Hull 957 P.2d 984 Ariz. 1998
Ruiz v. Hull 957 P.2d 984 Ariz. 1998
Arizona State Board of Regents v. Arizona State Personnel Board 953 P.2d 904 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Arizona State Board of Regents v. Arizona State Personnel Board 953 P.2d 904 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Cochise County v. Kirschner 830 P.2d 470 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Cochise County v. Kirschner 830 P.2d 470 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Swift & , overruled on other grounds, Pittsburgh & Midway Coal Mining Co.
Republic Investment Fund I v. Town of Surprise 800 P.2d 1251 Ariz. 1990
Republic Investment Fund I v. Town of Surprise 800 P.2d 1251 Ariz. 1990
See, -58 , -65 (1949); Glover, 62 Ariz. at 560 , 159 P.2d at 301 .
For Deannexation v. City of Goodyear 773 P.2d 1026 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
For Deannexation v. City of Goodyear 773 P.2d 1026 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
In one case, the court invalidated an initiative act that provided most counties the option to establish civil service systems but required class I counties to do so, finding it a “special law, when a general law could be made applicable.”
Fund Manager v. Corbin 778 P.2d 1244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Fund Manager v. Corbin 778 P.2d 1244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
” 109 Ariz. at 374 , 509 P.2d at 711 .
Arizona Board of Regents v. State Department of Administration 728 P.2d 669 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Arizona Board of Regents v. State Department of Administration 728 P.2d 669 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Article 11, Section 2 of the Arizona Constitution states: “The general conduct and supervision of the public school system shall be vested in a State Board of Education, a State Superintendent of Public Instruction, county school superintendents and such governing boards for the State institutions as may be provided by law.” (Emphasis added) , the Arizona Supreme Court held that the above constitutional provision provides the board with plenary power over its employees.
Searles v. Strauch 716 P.2d 421 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Searles v. Strauch 716 P.2d 421 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Subject to a limited and well-defined exception, , : [Ajfter a statute has been passed by a vote of the people and promulgated as the law, this court’s sphere of inquiry is and should be whether the law itself in its final form is constitutional as to its provisions, and not whether there was a constitutional defect in the proceedings leading to i
Lake Havasu City v. Mohave County 675 P.2d 1371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Lake Havasu City v. Mohave County 675 P.2d 1371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Sabel 674 P.2d 316 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Sabel 674 P.2d 316 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Not only is it admissible through judicial notice, , , in some jurisdictions it has been held to be conclusive.
Amphitheater Unified School District 10 v. Harte 624 P.2d 1281 Ariz. 1981
Amphitheater Unified School District 10 v. Harte 624 P.2d 1281 Ariz. 1981
232 P. 884 (1925), , the court referred to school districts as political subdivisions of the state.
Pinetop-Lakeside Sanitary District v. Ferguson 630 P.2d 1036 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Pinetop-Lakeside Sanitary District v. Ferguson 630 P.2d 1036 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Building Products Co. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 604 P.2d 1148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Building Products Co. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 604 P.2d 1148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Arizona Power Co. v. Stuart, 212 F.2d 535 (9th Cir. 1954)
McKinney v. Aldrich 600 P.2d 1120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
McKinney v. Aldrich 600 P.2d 1120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Cohen v. State 588 P.2d 299 Ariz. 1978
Cohen v. State 588 P.2d 299 Ariz. 1978
State v. A. J. Bayless Markets, Inc.
Cohen v. State 588 P.2d 313 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978