Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Adams v. Bolin, 247 P.2d 617.

126 citing documents.

Lee v. Superior Court 472 P.2d 34 Ariz. 1970
we said: “Nothing is more firmly settled than under ordinary circumstances, where there is involved no ambiguity, or absurdity, a statutory or constitutional provision requires no interpretation.” Again, , we said: “Where the statute is unamb
Bolin v. Superior Court 449 P.2d 4 Ariz. 1969
Bolin v. Superior Court 449 P.2d 4 Ariz. 1969
While it has been the practice in this State that initiative and referendum actions have been brought against the Secretary of State, and not against the proponents of a measure ( , ; , , 33 A.L.R.2d 1102 ; , .), the facts in the instant case are different from those in previous cases.
State Ex Rel. Nelson v. Jordan 449 P.2d 18 Ariz. 1968
State Ex Rel. Nelson v. Jordan 449 P.2d 18 Ariz. 1968
33 A.L.R.2d 1102 ; McCurtain County Excise Bd.
Iman v. Southern Pacific Company 435 P.2d 851 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Iman v. Southern Pacific Company 435 P.2d 851 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Overson v. City of Phoenix Board of Adjustment 421 P.2d 882 Ariz. 1966
Overson v. City of Phoenix Board of Adjustment 421 P.2d 882 Ariz. 1966
Turner v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN AND FOR COUNTY FOR PIMA 415 P.2d 129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Turner v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN AND FOR COUNTY FOR PIMA 415 P.2d 129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Atchison, Topeka & , 265 P. 602 , 58 A.L.R.
Iman v. Bolin 404 P.2d 705 Ariz. 1965
Iman v. Bolin 404 P.2d 705 Ariz. 1965
and see, as modified, , , 33 A.L.R.2d 1102 .
Applications of Oppenheimer 389 P.2d 696 Ariz. 1964
Applications of Oppenheimer 389 P.2d 696 Ariz. 1964
Hughes Tool Company v. Superior Court 370 P.2d 646 Ariz. 1962
Hughes Tool Company v. Superior Court 370 P.2d 646 Ariz. 1962
271 P. 411 (1928); , , 33 A.L.R.2d 1102 (1952).
Ward v. Stevens 344 P.2d 491 Ariz. 1959
Ward v. Stevens 344 P.2d 491 Ariz. 1959
It has been held that when a constitutional provision is clear on its face and is logically capable of only one interpretation, no extrinsic matter may be shown in support of a construction which would vary its apparent meaning, , , 33 A.L.R.
Whitney v. Bolin 330 P.2d 1003 Ariz. 1958
Whitney v. Bolin 330 P.2d 1003 Ariz. 1958
Brown v. Superior Court 303 P.2d 990 Ariz. 1956
Brown v. Superior Court 303 P.2d 990 Ariz. 1956
Secondly, , , 33 A.L.R.2d 1102 , that the Supreme Court would take judicial notice of the official records as to election matters on file in the office of the secretary of state.
Ernst v. Collins 302 P.2d 941 Ariz. 1956
Ernst v. Collins 302 P.2d 941 Ariz. 1956
33 A.L.R.2d 1102 ; Automatic Registering Mach.
Porter v. Eyer 294 P.2d 661 Ariz. 1956

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by