Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Dennis v. Jordan, 229 P.2d 692.

33 citing documents.

Worker Power v. Glendale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Worker Power v. Glendale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Leach v. reagan/clean Energy for a Healthy Arizona 430 P.3d 1241 Ariz. 2018
Leach v. reagan/clean Energy for a Healthy Arizona 430 P.3d 1241 Ariz. 2018
(stating “it is not necessary that the title be a synopsis or a complete index of the legislation that is to follow” but suffices if it “indicate[s], in a general way at least, what is to follow in the way of legislation” and “put[s] anyone having an interest in the subject matter on inquiry” (emphasis rem
Pamela Manic v. Tucson City Attorney's Office Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Pamela Manic v. Tucson City Attorney's Office Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
See Dennis v. Jordan, 71 Ariz. 430, 439, (acts prescribing rights and duties may include punishment even if not included in title); (rights related to trial by jury not included in title of act are reasonably part of criminal code).
Clean Elections Institute, Inc. v. Brewer 99 P.3d 570 Ariz. 2004
Clean Elections Institute, Inc. v. Brewer 99 P.3d 570 Ariz. 2004
at 216 , , the title of an act “should not be so meager as to mislead or tend to avert inquiry as to the context thereof....” , -98 (1951).
Hoyle v. Superior Court 778 P.2d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Hoyle v. Superior Court 778 P.2d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Fund Manager v. Corbin 778 P.2d 1244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Fund Manager v. Corbin 778 P.2d 1244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Searles v. Strauch 716 P.2d 421 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Searles v. Strauch 716 P.2d 421 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
*54 , , , 130 P. 1114 (1913).
Cracchiolo v. State 706 P.2d 1219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Cracchiolo v. State 706 P.2d 1219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Town of Chino Valley v. City of Prescott 638 P.2d 1324 Ariz. 1981
Town of Chino Valley v. City of Prescott 638 P.2d 1324 Ariz. 1981
fficient if it is not productive of surprise and fraud, and is not calculated to mislead the legislature or the people, but is of such character as fairly to apprise legislators, and the public in general, of the subject matter of the legislation, and of the interests that are or may be affected thereby, and to put anyone having an interest in the subject matter on inquiry.” ’ ” , -98 (1951) (emphasis in original).
Adams v. Industrial Commission 547 P.2d 1089 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
White v. Kaibab Road Improvement District 550 P.2d 80 Ariz. 1976
White v. Kaibab Road Improvement District 550 P.2d 80 Ariz. 1976
Industrial Development Authority of Pinal County v. Nelson, supra; , , vacated on other grounds
Shaw v. State 447 P.2d 262 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Shaw v. State 447 P.2d 262 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Anthony A. Bianco, Inc. v. Hess 339 P.2d 1038 Ariz. 1959
Anthony A. Bianco, Inc. v. Hess 339 P.2d 1038 Ariz. 1959
quotes with approval from Equitable Credit & Discount Co. v. Geier, 342 Pa.
State v. Gastelum 255 P.2d 203 Ariz. 1953
State v. Gastelum 255 P.2d 203 Ariz. 1953
First, let us observe that we have held in State v. Harold, supra, that such inclusion is not necessary, , ; and secondly, the evil *274 effect of the use of narcotic drugs upon the health and morals of an individual or of a people is so generally known that the court will take judicial notice thereof, and we believe that because of the general knowledge of its evils the title to the act above quoted would s
State v. Harold 246 P.2d 178 Ariz. 1952
State v. Harold 246 P.2d 178 Ariz. 1952
If in his reference to the imposition of such penalties provided for therein he contends that the title of the act gives no notice that such provision would be incorporated therein and that the act is therefore unconstitutional, the answer is first, that such inclusion is not necessary, , ; and second, that the title expressly provides for such penalties.
State v. Bennett 242 P.2d 840 Ariz. 1952
State v. Bennett 242 P.2d 840 Ariz. 1952
232 P. 884 , cited by appellant are directly in point.
State v. Gee 236 P.2d 1029 Ariz. 1951
State v. Gee 236 P.2d 1029 Ariz. 1951