Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Taylor v. Roosevelt Irr. Dist., 232 P.2d 107.

36 citing documents.

Clouse Ex Rel. Clouse v. State 16 P.3d 757 Ariz. 2001
Clouse v. State 11 P.3d 1012 Ariz. 2000
Conant v. Whitney 947 P.2d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Conant v. Whitney 947 P.2d 864 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Lloyd v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 860 P.2d 1300 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Lloyd v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 860 P.2d 1300 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
233 at 237-38 , at 622-23
Ocotillo West Joint Venture v. Superior Court 844 P.2d 653 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Ocotillo West Joint Venture v. Superior Court 844 P.2d 653 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Porterfield v. Van Boening 744 P.2d 468 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Porterfield v. Van Boening 744 P.2d 468 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Dist., , opinion adhered to on reh’g by
Pinetop-Lakeside Sanitary District v. Ferguson 630 P.2d 1032 Ariz. 1981
Pinetop-Lakeside Sanitary District v. Ferguson 630 P.2d 1032 Ariz. 1981
Dist., , supplemented, , in which an irrigation district was held not to be immune from tort liability, and in Valley National Bank of Phoenix v. Electrical Dist.
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement v. City of Phoenix 631 P.2d 553 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement v. City of Phoenix 631 P.2d 553 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
The City contends that “The Supreme Court has flatly and repeatedly held that in their ordinary activities of selling water and electricity, agricultural water and electrical districts act in a proprietary [rather than a governmental] capacity.” In sup *400 port of its contention, , modified on rehearing, , and City of Mesa v. Salt River Project Agr.
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
See Opinion of the Attorney General 60-54 (1960); , aff’d. on rehearing, , which stated in part as follows: [T]he constitutional amendment, Section 7, Article 13, was adopted for the purpose of granting tax immunity to irrigation, power, electrical, agricultural improvement, drainage, and flood control districts, and tax levying public improvement districts.
Barnum v. Rural Fire Protection Company 537 P.2d 618 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Barnum v. Rural Fire Protection Company 537 P.2d 618 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
City of Phoenix v. Collar, Williams & White Engineering, Inc. 472 P.2d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
City of Phoenix v. Collar, Williams & White Engineering, Inc. 472 P.2d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
at 164 , at 109 (1951) [ , ] drawing a distinction between “political subdivisions” and “municipalities” for the purposes of the doctrine of sovereign immunity which existed in this state prior to Stone v. Highway Commissi
City of Tucson v. Sanderson 449 P.2d 616 Ariz. 1969
City of Tucson v. Sanderson 449 P.2d 616 Ariz. 1969
Dist., , , in which we held that, while the Roosevelt Irrigation District had no duty to fence the canal, had it not done so it would not have been guilty of negligence; however, when it erected the fence for the purpose of preventing cattle from entering the canal and being trapped there, and plaintiff relied u
Marble v. Parham 416 P.2d 1006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Marble v. Parham 416 P.2d 1006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Dist., , Lee v. Salt River Valley Water Users’ Ass’n
Enloe v. Baker 383 P.2d 748 Ariz. 1963
Enloe v. Baker 383 P.2d 748 Ariz. 1963
City of Mesa v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District 373 P.2d 722 Ariz. 1962
City of Mesa v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District 373 P.2d 722 Ariz. 1962
On rehearing in the same case, , , we said that the adoption of the constitutional amendment in no sense altered the inherent characteristics of the District and that it is essentially a business corporation *104 with attributes of sovereignty which are only incidental, conferred for the purposes of better enabling it to function and a
Valley National Bank v. Electrical District Number Four 367 P.2d 655 Ariz. 1961
Valley National Bank v. Electrical District Number Four 367 P.2d 655 Ariz. 1961
Dist., , , affirming , , this Court held that districts of this type were not immune from tort action, and pointed out the basic limitations on the immunities mentioned in the constitutional provision above set forth.
City of Phoenix v. Williams 361 P.2d 651 Ariz. 1961
City of Phoenix v. Williams 361 P.2d 651 Ariz. 1961
Dist., , ; , ; , P.2d 535.
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
Dist., 1950, , , and the rehearing of the same case, 1951, , ; Rubenstein Const. Co. v. Salt River Proj.
City of Phoenix v. Lane 263 P.2d 302 Ariz. 1953
City of Phoenix v. Lane 263 P.2d 302 Ariz. 1953