Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Mathews v. Pyle, 251 P.2d 893.

84 citing documents.

Arizona Board of Regents v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 806 P.2d 348 Ariz. 1991
Mitchell v. SUPER. CT. IN AND FOR PIMA CTY. 690 P.2d 51 Ariz. 1984
Mitchell v. SUPER. CT. IN AND FOR PIMA CTY. 690 P.2d 51 Ariz. 1984
Carlson v. Pima County 687 P.2d 1242 Ariz. 1984
Carlson v. Pima County 687 P.2d 1242 Ariz. 1984
Pima County v. Harte 638 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Pima County v. Harte 638 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Moorehead v. Arnold 637 P.2d 305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Little v. Gilkinson 636 P.2d 663 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Moorehead v. Arnold 637 P.2d 305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
the Supreme Court defined a public record as “one made by a public officer in pursuance of a duty, the immediate purpose of which is to disseminate information to the public, or to serve as a memorial of official transactions for public reference”.
Little v. Gilkinson 636 P.2d 663 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Appellant contends that Church of Scientology cannot control this case because it was wrongly decided in light of the Arizona Supreme Court case
Church of Scientology v. City of Phoenix Police Department 594 P.2d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Church of Scientology v. City of Phoenix Police Department 594 P.2d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
in which a newspaper sought access to an investigative report submitted to the Governor on the activities of the Attorney General’s Office.
Fenton v. Howard 575 P.2d 318 Ariz. 1978
Fenton v. Howard 575 P.2d 318 Ariz. 1978
We find a , although the Mathews case involved the executive rather than judicial branch of government.
Grimm v. Arizona Board of Pardons & Paroles 564 P.2d 1227 Ariz. 1977
Grimm v. Arizona Board of Pardons & Paroles 564 P.2d 1227 Ariz. 1977
Although not cited by appellees, , discussed the relation between the right to inspect documents in public offices and the best interests of the state.
State Ex Rel. Babbitt v. Arnold 548 P.2d 426 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
State Ex Rel. Babbitt v. Arnold 548 P.2d 426 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
the editor of the Arizona Daily Star sought the right to inspect certain documents in the Governor’s office.
City of Tucson v. SUP. CT., IN & FOR CTY. OF PIMA 544 P.2d 1113 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
City of Tucson v. SUP. CT., IN & FOR CTY. OF PIMA 544 P.2d 1113 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
In Peterson , , which held that the editor of a newspaper could see a report submitted by the Attorney General to the Governor “ .
Hanson v. Rowe 500 P.2d 916 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Hanson v. Rowe 500 P.2d 916 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
City of Phoenix v. Peterson 462 P.2d 829 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
City of Phoenix v. Peterson 462 P.2d 829 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Schenks v. Earnhardt Ford Sales Co. 454 P.2d 873 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Schenks v. Earnhardt Ford Sales Co. 454 P.2d 873 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Greater Arizona Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Gleeson 429 P.2d 464 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Industrial Commission v. Holohan 397 P.2d 624 Ariz. 1964
Industrial Commission v. Holohan 397 P.2d 624 Ariz. 1964
Crouch v. Pixler 320 P.2d 943 Ariz. 1958
Crouch v. Pixler 320 P.2d 943 Ariz. 1958
State v. Stracuzzi 289 P.2d 187 Ariz. 1955
State v. Stracuzzi 289 P.2d 187 Ariz. 1955