Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Local 266, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. Salt River Project Agricult…, 275 P.2d 393.

52 citing documents.

Tina Zambrano v. M & Rc II LLC Ariz. 2022
Tina Zambrano v. M & Rc II LLC Ariz. 2022
Improvement & Power Dist., –41 (1954) (“We have said that statements of public policy must be made by the people through the legislature.”); Ray, 72 Ariz. at 35 (“The 27 ZAMBRANO V. M & RC II LLC, ET AL. JUSTICE KING, joined by JUSTICE BOLICK, Dissenting declaration of ‘
Ernest Quiroz Et Ux v. Alcoa Inc 416 P.3d 824 Ariz. 2018
Ernest Quiroz Et Ux v. Alcoa Inc 416 P.3d 824 Ariz. 2018
Improvement & Power Dist., –41 (1954) (“We have said that statements of public policy must be made by the people through the legislature.”) ¶20 We have also recognized public policy giving rise to a duty based on the common law — specifically, case law and Restatement sections consistent with Arizona law.
Adams v. COM'N ON APPELLATE CT. APPOINTMENTS 254 P.3d 367 Ariz. 2011
Adams v. COM'N ON APPELLATE CT. APPOINTMENTS 254 P.3d 367 Ariz. 2011
Improvement & Power Dist., -43, 401-02 (1954), their activities are authorized by the constitution and by statute, and their business is of a public nature similar in some respects to certain statutorily
Reid v. Reid 213 P.3d 353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Northwest Fire District v. U.S. Home of Arizona Construction Co. 161 P.3d 535 Ariz. 2007
Northwest Fire District v. U.S. Home of Arizona Construction Co. 161 P.3d 535 Ariz. 2007
Improvement & Power Dist.
Pierce v. Molet 87 P.3d 89 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Pierce v. Molet 87 P.3d 89 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Galloway v. Vanderpool 69 P.3d 23 Ariz. 2003
Galloway v. Vanderpool 69 P.3d 23 Ariz. 2003
Improvement & Power Dist.
Sanderson Lincoln Mercury, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co. 68 P.3d 428 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Sanderson Lincoln Mercury, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co. 68 P.3d 428 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Improvement & Power Dist., , (“The powers of a municipal corporation are those which are given it by the state.”); , 565 ¶ 18, (“A municipal corporation exercises law-making authority only to the extent delegated by statute.”); cf. Amish v. City of Phoe
Hohokam Irrigation & Drainage District v. Arizona Public Service Co. 64 P.3d 836 Ariz. 2003
Hohokam Irrigation & Drainage District v. Arizona Public Service Co. 64 P.3d 836 Ariz. 2003
Improvement and Power Dist.
Clouse Ex Rel. Clouse v. State 16 P.3d 757 Ariz. 2001
Clouse v. State 11 P.3d 1012 Ariz. 2000
State Ex Rel. Fox v. New Phoenix Auto Auction, Ltd. 916 P.2d 492 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State Ex Rel. Fox v. New Phoenix Auto Auction, Ltd. 916 P.2d 492 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
If there is ever a situation where we are compelled to follow the maxim that “[t]he plain meaning of a statute must be observed,” Local 266 v. Salt River Project, , it is when the legislature expresses itself using its own technical terms.
Maricopa County v. Maricopa County Municipal Water Conservation District No. 1 830 P.2d 846 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Maricopa County v. Maricopa County Municipal Water Conservation District No. 1 830 P.2d 846 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
-27 (1941); , 207 P. 611, 612 (1922), cited in Local 266 v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District
Porterfield v. Van Boening 744 P.2d 468 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Porterfield v. Van Boening 744 P.2d 468 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
& Power Dist., -44 , -03 (1954); Taylor v. Roosevelt Irr.
Pinetop-Lakeside Sanitary District v. Ferguson 630 P.2d 1032 Ariz. 1981
Pinetop-Lakeside Sanitary District v. Ferguson 630 P.2d 1032 Ariz. 1981
& P. Dist., , where we said: “Appellants contend that the foregoing amendment to the Arizona Constitution did nothing more than grant the District immunity from taxation.
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement v. City of Phoenix 631 P.2d 553 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement v. City of Phoenix 631 P.2d 553 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
& Power Dist., , in support of its argument that the Project “exists merely to move dirt and channel water”, which “does not rise to the dignity of government.” We are not persuaded by the City’s argument on this point.
Niedner v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District 590 P.2d 447 Ariz. 1979
Niedner v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District 590 P.2d 447 Ariz. 1979
In Local 266, , we said: “Public employment means employment by some branch of government or body politic specially serving the needs of the general public.
Board of Education v. Scottsdale Education Ass'n 498 P.2d 578 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Board of Education v. Scottsdale Education Ass'n 498 P.2d 578 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
SEA contends that the case of Local 266, , requires this question to be answered in the affirmative.
Communications Workers of America v. Arizona Board of Regents 498 P.2d 472 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Communications Workers of America v. Arizona Board of Regents 498 P.2d 472 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
The appellants place great emphasis upon Local 266
Kilpatrick v. Superior Court 466 P.2d 18 Ariz. 1970
Kilpatrick v. Superior Court 466 P.2d 18 Ariz. 1970
and Power District, , ; , ; , , rehearing , ; , ; Albert Steinfeld & , .
State v. McFall 439 P.2d 805 Ariz. 1968
State v. McFall 439 P.2d 805 Ariz. 1968
City of Phoenix v. Superior Court 419 P.2d 49 Ariz. 1966
City of Phoenix v. Superior Court 419 P.2d 49 Ariz. 1966
& Power Dist, , ; , ; State v. Airesearch Mfg.
Uhlmann v. Wren 401 P.2d 113 Ariz. 1965
Uhlmann v. Wren 401 P.2d 113 Ariz. 1965
Police Pension Board of City of Phoenix v. Warren 398 P.2d 892 Ariz. 1965
Police Pension Board of City of Phoenix v. Warren 398 P.2d 892 Ariz. 1965
Local 266, International Brotherhood of Electrical *185 Workers, , .
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
& P. Dist., , ; Rubenstein Const. Co. v. Salt River Proj.
Weiss v. Industrial Commission 347 P.2d 578 Ariz. 1959
Weiss v. Industrial Commission 347 P.2d 578 Ariz. 1959
Board of Supervisors of Pima County v. Harrington 333 P.2d 971 Ariz. 1958

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by