Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Roberts v. Spray, 223 P.2d 808.

85 citing documents.

Vande Krol v. superstition/benchmark Ariz. 2025
Vande Krol v. superstition/benchmark Ariz. 2025
(noting that when statutes and the Constitution “relate to the same subject, like statutes in pari materia, they are to be construed together” (quoting Cooper Mfg.
Conway v. Arizona Independent Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Conway v. Arizona Independent Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Redistricting I, 220 Ariz. at 595, ¶ 22 (“A redistricting plan receives the same deference as we afford to other legislation.”); (noting 5 CONWAY v. ARIZONA INDEPENDENT Decision of the Court that the legislature is “presumed to have known of and had in mind” applicable constitutional provisions when enacting legislation).
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Mathis 290 P.3d 1226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Mathis 290 P.3d 1226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
This is because “[s]tate constitutions are a limitation upon the power of sovereignty and in the absence of an expressed or inferential prohibition by the provisions of the constitution of the United States or of the state of Arizona the legislature of this state may in the exercise of the sovereign powers of the state, enact any law its discretion may dictate.”
State of Arizona v. John David Franklin, Sr. & John David Franklin, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. John David Franklin, Sr. & John David Franklin, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Additionally, „“[a]s the clause in the constitution and the act of the legislature relate to the same subject, like statutes in pari materia, they are to be construed together.”‟ quoting Cooper Mfg.
State v. ZAPUTIL 207 P.3d 678 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. ZAPUTIL 207 P.3d 678 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
(noting statutes are to be read in light of the constitution and other statutes relating to the same matter).
Higginbottom v. State 51 P.3d 972 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Higginbottom v. State 51 P.3d 972 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Blake v. Schwartz 42 P.3d 6 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Blake v. Schwartz 42 P.3d 6 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
-14 (1950)(internal citation omitted).
State v. Seyrafi 32 P.3d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Seyrafi 32 P.3d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
-14 (1950) (citations omitted); Black & , 218 P. 139 (1923); Green v. Frazier, 253 U.S. 233 , 40 S.Ct.
State v. Moerman 895 P.2d 1018 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Moerman 895 P.2d 1018 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State Compensation Fund v. Ireland 851 P.2d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State Compensation Fund v. Ireland 851 P.2d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Petolicchio v. Santa Cruz County Fair & Rodeo Ass'n 838 P.2d 1348 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Petolicchio v. Santa Cruz County Fair & Rodeo Ass'n 838 P.2d 1348 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 781 P.2d 605 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 781 P.2d 605 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Both sides acknowledge that as of 1981, , that hospital districts had no statutory authority to operate hospitals and could only lease them as provided by the statutory provisions now in effect as A.R.S.
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
Patchell v. State 711 P.2d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Patchell v. State 711 P.2d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
The fact that the constitution contains a self-executing provision on a particular subject, such as this one, does not prevent the legislature from acting on the same subject, so long as its statutes are “in harmony with the spirit of the constitution.”
Mardian Construction Co. v. Superior Court 557 P.2d 526 Ariz. 1976
Mardian Construction Co. v. Superior Court 557 P.2d 526 Ariz. 1976
Greyhound Parks of Arizona
Folk v. City of Phoenix 551 P.2d 595 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Folk v. City of Phoenix 551 P.2d 595 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Rule 12 (b)(6), Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 ARS; , Williams v. Williams, 23 Ariz.App.
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
this Court was faced with a similar argument to that made by the Attorney General in this case.
Smith v. Superior Court, Pima County 495 P.2d 519 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Smith v. Superior Court, Pima County 495 P.2d 519 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
City of Tucson v. Superior Court of Pima County, 2 Ariz.App.
Direct Sellers Ass'n v. McBrayer 492 P.2d 727 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Direct Sellers Ass'n v. McBrayer 492 P.2d 727 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Fry v. Mayor and City Council of Sierra Vista, 11 Ariz.App.
Ruth v. Industrial Commission 490 P.2d 828 Ariz. 1971
Ruth v. Industrial Commission 490 P.2d 828 Ariz. 1971
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
National Union Fire Insurance v. Truck Insurance Exchange 479 P.2d 189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
National Union Fire Insurance v. Truck Insurance Exchange 479 P.2d 189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
“Questions as to the wisdom of the law, as to its expediency or concerning the soundness of policy outlined therein must be addressed to the legislature.” , 223 P.2d *543 808 (1950), cited in Bonnin v. Industrial Commission, 6 Ariz.App.
Kilpatrick v. Superior Court 466 P.2d 18 Ariz. 1970
Kilpatrick v. Superior Court 466 P.2d 18 Ariz. 1970
Where there is doubt in the legislative language, it is the court’s duty to reconcile the language with the constitutional provision, , , and construe the statute in such a manner that it will be constitutional if possible, , .
Frazier v. O. S. Stapley Co. 454 P.2d 184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Frazier v. O. S. Stapley Co. 454 P.2d 184 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Chemi-Cote Perlite Corporation v. Harborlite Corporation, 4 Ariz.App.
Allen v. Graham 446 P.2d 240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Allen v. Graham 446 P.2d 240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
See, , Iman v. Southern Pacific Co., 7 Ariz.App.