Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Moore v. Bolin, 220 P.2d 850.

48 citing documents.

DAVIS v. PRESCOTT Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
DAVIS v. PRESCOTT Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
specific adverse claims, based upon present rather than future or speculative facts, which are ripe for judicial determination.” Mills, 253 Ariz. at 423–24 ¶ 25 (a claim is justiciable under the UDJA when facts in a complaint “’show a present existing controversy which permits the court to adjudicate any present rights[.]’” ().
Campbell v. Campbell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Campbell v. Campbell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Husband cites Moore v. Bolin for the proposition that “[t]he allegations merely show an intent to do certain things in the future all of which are dependent upon future events and contingencies within control of the appellant.”
Greg Mills v. Abtr Ariz. 2022
Greg Mills v. Abtr Ariz. 2022
Facts pleaded in a complaint must therefore “show a present existing controversy which permits the court to adjudicate any present rights,” and not merely allege “an intent to do certain things in the future all of which are dependent upon future events and contingencies within control of the [plaintiff].”
Burns v. Apsc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Burns v. Apsc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
(“[C]onstitutional questions will not be determined abstractly or in a hypothetical case, or anticipated in advance of the necessity for determination thereof .
Hunt v. Richardson 163 P.3d 1064 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Hunt v. Richardson 163 P.3d 1064 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Nor will future rights be determined in anticipation of an event that may never happen.’” , (quoting Annotation, Declaration of Rights or Declaratory Judgments, 87 A.L.R.
U.S. West Communications, Inc. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 8 P.3d 396 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
U.S. West Communications, Inc. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 8 P.3d 396 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
*215 “The court ordinarily will not decide as to future or contingent rights, but will wait until the event giving rise to rights has happened, or, in other words, until rights have become fixed under an existing state of facts.”
American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees v. Lewis 797 P.2d 6 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees v. Lewis 797 P.2d 6 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
BD. OF SUP'RS OF MARICOPA COUNTY v. Woodall 586 P.2d 628 Ariz. 1978
Board of Supervisors v. Woodall 586 P.2d 628 Ariz. 1978
BD. OF SUP'RS OF MARICOPA COUNTY v. Woodall 586 P.2d 628 Ariz. 1978
Planned Parenthood Center of Tucson
Board of Supervisors v. Woodall 586 P.2d 628 Ariz. 1978
Planned Parenthood Center of Tucson, Inc. v. Marks, 17 Ariz.App.
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
*247 , we stated the rule to be that there would be no consideration of the constitutionality of an act if no injury had as yet resulted from the application of the statute and no rights had been brought within its actual or threatened operation.
BOARD OF SUP'RS OF MARICOPA CTY. v. Woodall 586 P.2d 640 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
BOARD OF SUP'RS OF MARICOPA CTY. v. Woodall 586 P.2d 640 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Anderson v. Southwest Savings & Loan Ass'n 571 P.2d 1042 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Anderson v. Southwest Savings & Loan Ass'n 571 P.2d 1042 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Town of Wickenburg v. State 565 P.2d 1326 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Town of Wickenburg v. State 565 P.2d 1326 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
at 358 , at 852 (1950), when asked to declare a statute unconstitutional which allegedly restricted plaintiff’s right to seek office: “It is the court’s view that the facts pleaded by appellant do not show a present existing controversy which permits the court to adjudicate any present rights.
Citizens for Orderly Development & Environment v. City of Phoenix 540 P.2d 1239 Ariz. 1975
Citizens for Orderly Development & Environment v. City of Phoenix 540 P.2d 1239 Ariz. 1975
Citizens' Committee for the Recall of Williams v. Marston 507 P.2d 113 Ariz. 1973
Citizens' Committee for the Recall of Williams v. Marston 507 P.2d 113 Ariz. 1973
There are many contingencies or events which might occur before the last day before appellant may file his petition, e. g., the appellant may decide not to become a candidate for office between now and the time for filing petitions and papers, or he might not secure the required number of signatures to his papers and petitions as to entitle him to file for the office of Governor.”
Planned Parenthood Center of Tucson, Inc. v. Marks 497 P.2d 534 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Planned Parenthood Center of Tucson, Inc. v. Marks 497 P.2d 534 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Riley v. County of Cochise, 10 Ariz.App.
Riley v. County of Cochise 455 P.2d 1005 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Riley v. County of Cochise 455 P.2d 1005 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Manning v. Reilly, 2 Ariz.App.
Bowen v. Sil-Flo Corporation 451 P.2d 626 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Bowen v. Sil-Flo Corporation 451 P.2d 626 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Arizona State Board of Directors for Junior Colleges v. Phoenix Union High School District 424 P.2d 819 Ariz. 1967
Arizona State Board of Directors for Junior Colleges v. Phoenix Union High School District 424 P.2d 819 Ariz. 1967
State v. McGill 419 P.2d 499 Ariz. 1966
State v. McGill 419 P.2d 499 Ariz. 1966
Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corporation v. Frazier 375 P.2d 18 Ariz. 1962
Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corporation v. Frazier 375 P.2d 18 Ariz. 1962
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
Maricopa County v. Leppla 360 P.2d 227 Ariz. 1961
Maricopa County v. Leppla 360 P.2d 227 Ariz. 1961
County of Maricopa v. Anderson 306 P.2d 268 Ariz. 1957
County of Maricopa v. Anderson 306 P.2d 268 Ariz. 1957
1422 , the court said: “Courts will decline to consider the question of the constitutionality of a statute unless a decision can be reached on no other ground than the constitutional one.” , ; Reichenberger v. Salt River Project, etc., Dist., , .