Cited by

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

93 citing documents.

Regents of the University of Minnesota v. Lord 257 N.W.2d 796 Minn. 1977
Continental Casualty Co. v. Industrial Commission 547 P.2d 470 Ariz. 1976
Continental Casualty Co. v. Industrial Commission 547 P.2d 470 Ariz. 1976
and see the statute as amended in 1974, Laws of 1974, Ch. 184, § 22.
City of Phoenix v. Butler 515 P.2d 1180 Ariz. 1973
City of Phoenix v. Butler 515 P.2d 1180 Ariz. 1973
Industrial Develop. Auth. of Cty. of Pinal v. Nelson 509 P.2d 705 Ariz. 1973
Industrial Develop. Auth. of Cty. of Pinal v. Nelson 509 P.2d 705 Ariz. 1973
State Compensation Fund v. De La Fuente 501 P.2d 422 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State Compensation Fund v. De La Fuente 501 P.2d 422 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Welsh v. Arizona State Board of Accountancy 484 P.2d 201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Welsh v. Arizona State Board of Accountancy 484 P.2d 201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Ricca v. Bojorquez 473 P.2d 812 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Ricca v. Bojorquez 473 P.2d 812 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
16 Am.Jur.2d Constitutional Law § 250 (1964) ; 16 C.J.S.
Shaw v. State 447 P.2d 262 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Shaw v. State 447 P.2d 262 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Iman v. Bolin 404 P.2d 705 Ariz. 1965
Iman v. Bolin 404 P.2d 705 Ariz. 1965
Applications of Oppenheimer 389 P.2d 696 Ariz. 1964
Applications of Oppenheimer 389 P.2d 696 Ariz. 1964
Southern Pacific Company v. Cochise County 377 P.2d 770 Ariz. 1963
Southern Pacific Company v. Cochise County 377 P.2d 770 Ariz. 1963
1, Constitution of Arizona, and this power can neither be relinquished nor delegated, , ; , .
Hart v. Bayless Investment & Trading Company 346 P.2d 1101 Ariz. 1959
Hart v. Bayless Investment & Trading Company 346 P.2d 1101 Ariz. 1959
For this proposition we are cited to the so-called “enrolled bill rule”, , , viz.: “There is a line of authorities adhering to the rule that an enrolled bill imports verity, and it is conclusively presumed that the constitutionally prescribed details of legislative procedure leading to its passage and enrollment have been complied with.
State Board of Technical Registration v. McDaniel 326 P.2d 348 Ariz. 1958
State Board of Technical Registration v. McDaniel 326 P.2d 348 Ariz. 1958
Southwest Engineering Co. v. Ernst 291 P.2d 764 Ariz. 1955
Southwest Engineering Co. v. Ernst 291 P.2d 764 Ariz. 1955
Hudson v. Kelly 263 P.2d 362 Ariz. 1953
Hudson v. Kelly 263 P.2d 362 Ariz. 1953
powers, duties and authority of that office, and thereby violates Section 1 of Article S of the Constitution of the State of Arizona, enumerating executive officers of the state; and (F) That the Act is in its entirety so vague, indefinite and uncertain, both as to title and content, as to be unenforceable and unconstitutional'under the rule of this court as . , .
State v. Marana Plantations, Inc. 252 P.2d 87 Ariz. 1953
State v. Marana Plantations, Inc. 252 P.2d 87 Ariz. 1953
Tucson Manor, Inc. v. Federal Nat. Mortgage Ass'n 241 P.2d 1126 Ariz. 1952
Tucson Manor, Inc. v. Federal Nat. Mortgage Ass'n 241 P.2d 1126 Ariz. 1952
Defendant on the other hand seeks to invoke the “enrolled bill” rule, , , and insists that it is now too late to question whether the measure was submitted at a proper election or the necessary procedural steps followed in its submission to a vote of the people, , 130 P. 1114
Dennis v. Jordan 229 P.2d 692 Ariz. 1951
Dennis v. Jordan 229 P.2d 692 Ariz. 1951
Frye v. South Phoenix Volunteer Fire Co. 224 P.2d 651 Ariz. 1950
Frye v. South Phoenix Volunteer Fire Co. 224 P.2d 651 Ariz. 1950
in discussing the question with reference to an attempt in an initiative measure to vest in an administrative body the power to regulate all conditions of employment in the state service we said: “ * * * May the state, in order to accomplish this, transfer to an administrative body the unlimited
Roberts v. Spray 223 P.2d 808 Ariz. 1950
Roberts v. Spray 223 P.2d 808 Ariz. 1950
Loftus v. Russell 212 P.2d 91 Ariz. 1949
Loftus v. Russell 212 P.2d 91 Ariz. 1949
* * * ” *255 , , are patently applicable and correctly enunciate the law: “ * * * It is axiomatic that neither the legislature nor the people can delegate to an administrative board the power to legislate.
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
(Cases supra) It would seem that the desire of the board of regents to be an autonomous body, -freed of all shackles, was given impetus by our recent decision in Hernandez v. Frohmiller, 1949, , , wherein the constitutionality of the -state civil service law was under consideration.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by