Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Loftus v. Russell, 212 P.2d 91.
- Montenegro v. Fontes Ariz. 2025
-
Montenegro v. Fontes
Ariz. 2025
z. at 270 ¶ 43; see Inalienable, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inalienable (last visited September 7, 2025) (defining “inalienable” as “incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred”); see also Marana Plantations, 75 Ariz. at 114 (instructing that the legislative authority of the state “cannot be relinquished nor delegated”); (explaining that the power to legislate is reserved for the people and the legislature).
- 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
- Town of Chino Valley v. State Land Department 580 P.2d 704 Ariz. 1978
- Town of Chino Valley v. State Land Department 580 P.2d 704 Ariz. 1978
- Barbone v. Superior Court of Pima County 462 P.2d 845 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
-
Barbone v. Superior Court of Pima County
462 P.2d 845
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Canon v. Justice Court for Lake Valley Judicial District of El Dorado County, 61 Cal.2d 446 , 39 Cal.Rptr.
- Caruso v. Superior Court in and for County of Pima 412 P.2d 463 Ariz. 1966
- Caruso v. Superior Court in and for County of Pima 412 P.2d 463 Ariz. 1966
- Peterson v. Jacobson 411 P.2d 31 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
- Peterson v. Jacobson 411 P.2d 31 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
- Caruso v. Superior Court 406 P.2d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
-
Caruso v. Superior Court
406 P.2d 852
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Reliance is placed by the respondents upon decisions of our Supreme Court holding that a writ of prohibition cannot be used for the purpose of correcting errors made by a lower court
- 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, , ; , .
- In Re the Adoption of West 350 P.2d 125 Ariz. 1960
-
In Re the Adoption of West
350 P.2d 125
Ariz. 1960
In passing upon the sufficiency of a petition for a , , 95: “ * * * If the facts pleaded fail to show a cause cognizable for the application of the extraordinary remedy of prohibition, the writ should not issue and a want of sufficient facts would not be cured by an allegation of no adequate remedy at law,” The petition upon which the alternative writ was i
- 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
It is our view that the legislature in enacting chapter 153, supra, recognized the condition that would arise by a continuation of municipal regulation of the production, processing and distribution of milk in the state which, , , would result in as many principalities as there are municipalities in the state “ * * * with conflicting, burdensome, and intolerable trade barriers in a field of state-wide concern that had theretofore received more than passing consideration as evidenced by the enact
- State v. Marana Plantations, Inc. 252 P.2d 87 Ariz. 1953
- State v. Marana Plantations, Inc. 252 P.2d 87 Ariz. 1953
- Haggard v. Industrial Commission 223 P.2d 915 Ariz. 1950
- Haggard v. Industrial Commission 223 P.2d 915 Ariz. 1950
- Peters v. Frye 223 P.2d 176 Ariz. 1950
-
Peters v. Frye
223 P.2d 176
Ariz. 1950
It appears to us that counsel for plaintiffs, in urging this contention, has failed to differentiate between the delegation of power to enact laws, which cannot be done, , 271 P. 867 ; , , and the conferring of authority to administer a law in a manner that involves the exercise of administrative discretion.