Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Mendelsohn v. Superior Court, 261 P.2d 983.

86 citing documents.

Arizona State Liquor Board of Department of Liquor Licenses & Control v. Ali 550 P.2d 663 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Arizona State Liquor Board of Department of Liquor Licenses & Control v. Ali 550 P.2d 663 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
State Ex Rel. Flournoy v. Mangum 548 P.2d 1148 Ariz. 1976
State Ex Rel. Flournoy v. Mangum 548 P.2d 1148 Ariz. 1976
Arnold Const. Co., Inc. v. Arizona Board of Regents, supra; P.2d 983 (1953).
United States (Treasury Dept., IRS) v. Globe Corp. 546 P.2d 11 Ariz. 1976
United States (Treasury Dept., IRS) v. Globe Corp. 546 P.2d 11 Ariz. 1976
Longbridge Investment Company v. Moore 533 P.2d 564 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Longbridge Investment Company v. Moore 533 P.2d 564 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
the Arizona Supreme Court said: “liquor control legislation, while incidentally intended in some cases to produce revenue, has as its primary aid the protection of public welfare by preserving health, and eliminating intemperance and the undesirable social and moral effects commonly associated w
Arnold Const. Co., Inc. v. Arizona Board of Regents 512 P.2d 1229 Ariz. 1973
Arnold Const. Co., Inc. v. Arizona Board of Regents 512 P.2d 1229 Ariz. 1973
State Ex Rel. Ariz. St. Bd. of P. & P. v. Superior Court of Maricopa County 467 P.2d 917 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
State Ex Rel. Ariz. St. Bd. of P. & P. v. Superior Court of Maricopa County 467 P.2d 917 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
See the following cases as well on the general principles herein involved: , ; , , , ; Roer v. Superior Court, 4 Ariz.App.
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 & , .
Odle v. Shamrock Dairy of Phoenix, Inc. 441 P.2d 550 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Odle v. Shamrock Dairy of Phoenix, Inc. 441 P.2d 550 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Kaufman v. City of Tucson 433 P.2d 282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Kaufman v. City of Tucson 433 P.2d 282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
The sale of intoxicating liquors is in a class by itself, since it is effected with the public interest; ( , ), and it has been held that it is not a lawful business except as authorized by express legislation of the state.” 48 C.J.S.
Bowen v. Chemi-Cote Perlite Corporation 423 P.2d 104 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Bowen v. Chemi-Cote Perlite Corporation 423 P.2d 104 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Elizabeth Arden, Inc. v. Federal Trade Com., 2 Cir., 156 F.2d 132 , cert.
State v. Allred 425 P.2d 572 Ariz. 1967
State v. Allred 425 P.2d 572 Ariz. 1967
Campbell v. Chatwin 421 P.2d 937 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Campbell v. Chatwin 421 P.2d 937 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
46 , we stated: “The law is well established in Arizona that judicial review of administrative decisions does not lie as a matter of right, *507 'save and except in those situations wherein the review is authorized by law.” , : “It is settled law that the right of appeal exists only by force of positive enactment of law, * * * and that prohibition will lie to prevent an inferior tribunal from entertaining an appeal over which it has no jurisdiction.” Hereinafter unless the context clearly indica
Roer v. Superior Court 417 P.2d 559 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Roer v. Superior Court 417 P.2d 559 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Hart v. Arganese 313 P.2d 756 Ariz. 1957
Hart v. Arganese 313 P.2d 756 Ariz. 1957
rule fundamental and controlling is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the legislature, , ; , ; *384 where the language of a statute is susceptible of more than one interpretation the court must adopt the interpretation which is reasonable, , ; , 247 P. 799 .
Ernst v. Collins 302 P.2d 941 Ariz. 1956
Ernst v. Collins 302 P.2d 941 Ariz. 1956
Chee Lee v. Superior Court 302 P.2d 529 Ariz. 1956
Chee Lee v. Superior Court 302 P.2d 529 Ariz. 1956
Finch v. State Department of Public Welfare 295 P.2d 846 Ariz. 1956
Finch v. State Department of Public Welfare 295 P.2d 846 Ariz. 1956
“The cardinal principle of *230 statutory interpretation is that the intent of the legislature is to be ascertained and followed.” Mendelsohn v. Superior Court, 1953, , .
Local 266, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District 275 P.2d 393 Ariz. 1954
Local 266, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District 275 P.2d 393 Ariz. 1954
Mendelsohn v. Superior Court in and for Maricopa County, 1953, , .