Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Strode v. Sullivan, 236 P.2d 48.

40 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. City of Tucson Ariz. 2021
State of Arizona v. City of Tucson Ariz. 2021
Even more importantly, the Progressives encouraged municipal home rule.”); (explaining that the purpose of home rule “is to emancipate the municipal governments of cities .
State Ex Rel Brnovich v. City of tucson/dewit 399 P.3d 663 Ariz. 2017
State Ex Rel Brnovich v. City of tucson/dewit 399 P.3d 663 Ariz. 2017
¶ 42 Under this state’s well-established jurisprudence, whether the City’s Code controls over the conflicting state laws essentially hinges “on whether the subject matter is characterized as of statewide or purely local interest.” Tucson II, 229 Ariz. at 176 ¶ 20, 273 P.3d at 628 ( , ).
City of Scottsdale v. State 352 P.3d 936 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
City of Scottsdale v. State 352 P.3d 936 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(“This provision conferring upon a qualified city power to frame a charter for its own government is not an enabling act conferring carte blanche authority or plenary power to adopt any legislation that it might desire.”).
City of Tucson, City of Phoenix v. State of Arizona Ken Bennett 333 P.3d 761 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
City of Tucson, City of Phoenix v. State of Arizona Ken Bennett 333 P.3d 761 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
We also consider, consistent with our case law, whether the selection of an off-cycle election is a matter affecting “‘the method and manner of conducting elections,’” or is limited to an “administrative aspect[] of elections.” ¶¶ 32, 35, -30 (2012) (Tucson II)
City of Tucson v. State 273 P.3d 624 Ariz. 2012
City of Tucson v. State 273 P.3d 624 Ariz. 2012
A charter city has the power to frame its own organic law, including the power to determine “who shall be its governing officers and how they shall be selected.”
City of Tucson v. State 250 P.3d 251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
City of Tucson v. State 250 P.3d 251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
McMann v. City of Tucson 47 P.3d 672 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
McMann v. City of Tucson 47 P.3d 672 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
to be exercised has been specifically or by implication granted in its charter.’ ”
City of Casa Grande v. Arizona Water Co. 20 P.3d 590 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
City of Casa Grande v. Arizona Water Co. 20 P.3d 590 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
City of Tucson v. Consumers for Retail Choice 5 P.2d 934 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
City of Tucson v. Consumers for Retail Choice 5 P.2d 934 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Union Transportes De Nogales v. City of Nogales 985 P.2d 1025 Ariz. 1999
Union Transportes De Nogales v. City of Nogales 985 P.2d 1025 Ariz. 1999
Once approved by a majority vote of the city’s electorate and the governor, section 2 states that the charter becomes “the organic law of such city.” As the organic law, “the provisions of the charter supersede all laws of the state in conflict with such charter provisions insofar as such laws relate to purely municipal affairs.” , (emphasis added).
Whiteco Outdoor Advertising v. City of Tucson 972 P.2d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Whiteco Outdoor Advertising v. City of Tucson 972 P.2d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
quoting Mayor & , (“a charter city is sovereign in all of its ‘municipal affairs’ where the power ...
City of Tucson v. State 957 P.2d 341 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
City of Tucson v. State 957 P.2d 341 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
the City contends its primary election is strictly a matter of local concern.
Jett v. City of Tucson 882 P.2d 426 Ariz. 1994
Jett v. City of Tucson 882 P.2d 426 Ariz. 1994
-64 , *119 50-51 (1951), discussing Ariz. Const, art. 13, § 2.
Marsoner v. Pima County 801 P.2d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Marsoner v. Pima County 801 P.2d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Cota-Robles v. Mayor & Council of Tucson 786 P.2d 994 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Cota-Robles v. Mayor & Council of Tucson 786 P.2d 994 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
There is a restriction that any charter provisions adopted must be ‘consistent with, and subject to, the constitution and the laws of the state’.” , quoting Ariz. Const, art. XIII, § 2.
State v. Mercurio 736 P.2d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Mercurio 736 P.2d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
and are applicable in this case.
City of Tucson v. Fleischman 731 P.2d 634 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
City of Tucson v. Fleischman 731 P.2d 634 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Laos v. Arnold 685 P.2d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Laos v. Arnold 685 P.2d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
He further argues that the qualifications of elected officials of chartered cities are matters of purely local concern, relying on the supreme court’s
Triano v. Massion 513 P.2d 935 Ariz. 1973
Triano v. Massion 513 P.2d 935 Ariz. 1973
Arizona Fence Contractors Ass'n v. City of Phoenix Advisory & Appeals Board 436 P.2d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Arizona Fence Contractors Ass'n v. City of Phoenix Advisory & Appeals Board 436 P.2d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
which held municipal elections to be only of local interest, and not a matter of state-wide concern.