Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Edwards v. State Board of Barber Examiners, 231 P.2d 450.

38 citing documents.

State v. Fingi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Fingi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
of Barber Exam’rs, –13, (“[W]here an enactment bears any reasonable relationship to the end sought the courts may not substitute their judgment for the judgment of the legislature.”).
Vong v. Aune 328 P.3d 1057 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Vong v. Aune 328 P.3d 1057 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
of Barber Exam’rs, P.2d 450, 453 (1951) (“[W]e are unable to find any relationship, either in logic or common sense, between the public health and safety and price-fixing in the barbering profession.”).
Home Builders Ass'n v. City of Goodyear 221 P.3d 384 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Home Builders Ass'n v. City of Goodyear 221 P.3d 384 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
of Barber Examiners, , ).
Standhardt v. Superior Court 77 P.3d 451 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Standhardt v. Superior Court 77 P.3d 451 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
of Barber Exam’rs, , (stating Arizona’s due process *281 provision a corollary to federal Due Process Clause).
Home Builders Ass'n v. City of Scottsdale 930 P.2d 993 Ariz. 1997
Home Builders Ass'n v. City of Scottsdale 930 P.2d 993 Ariz. 1997
of Barber Examiners, -13
State v. Superior Court 930 P.2d 488 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Superior Court 930 P.2d 488 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Home Builders Ass'n v. City of Scottsdale 902 P.2d 1347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Home Builders Ass'n v. City of Scottsdale 902 P.2d 1347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. ARIZ. INS. GUAR. ASS'N 528 P.2d 839 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. ARIZ. INS. GUAR. ASS'N 528 P.2d 839 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Nelson v. Planned Parenthood Center of Tucson, Inc. 505 P.2d 580 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Nelson v. Planned Parenthood Center of Tucson, Inc. 505 P.2d 580 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Peabody v. City of Phoenix 485 P.2d 565 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Peabody v. City of Phoenix 485 P.2d 565 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
State v. Also 463 P.2d 122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
State v. Also 463 P.2d 122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
199 A.L.R.2d 1007 (1950).
McKinley v. Reilly 393 P.2d 268 Ariz. 1964
McKinley v. Reilly 393 P.2d 268 Ariz. 1964
we held that where an enactment bears any reasonable relationship to the end sought the courts may not substitute their judgment for the judgment of the legislature.
Visco v. State Ex Rel. Pickrell 388 P.2d 155 Ariz. 1963
Visco v. State Ex Rel. Pickrell 388 P.2d 155 Ariz. 1963
City of Phoenix v. Fehlner 363 P.2d 607 Ariz. 1961
City of Phoenix v. Fehlner 363 P.2d 607 Ariz. 1961
-113 , ; “ ‘ * * * [Wjhere an enactment bears any reasonable relationship to the end sought the courts may not substitute their judgment for the judgment of the legislature.’ And again stating antithetically: ‘Hence the rule which is of universal acceptance that the *19 courts will acquiesce in t
State Ex Rel. Willey v. Griggs 358 P.2d 174 Ariz. 1960
State Ex Rel. Willey v. Griggs 358 P.2d 174 Ariz. 1960
this Court stated that “A law enacted in the exercise of the police power must, in fact, be a police law.
Killingsworth v. West Way Motors, Inc. 347 P.2d 1098 Ariz. 1959
Killingsworth v. West Way Motors, Inc. 347 P.2d 1098 Ariz. 1959
State v. A. J. Bayless Markets, Inc. 342 P.2d 1088 Ariz. 1959
State v. A. J. Bayless Markets, Inc. 342 P.2d 1088 Ariz. 1959
State v. Beadle 326 P.2d 344 Ariz. 1958
State v. Beadle 326 P.2d 344 Ariz. 1958
State Board of Barber Examiners v. Edwards 258 P.2d 418 Ariz. 1953
State Board of Barber Examiners v. Edwards 258 P.2d 418 Ariz. 1953