Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Southwest Engineering Co. v. Ernst, 291 P.2d 764.

76 citing documents.

State Ex Rel Brnovich v. City of Phoenix Ariz. 2020
State Ex Rel Brnovich v. City of Phoenix Ariz. 2020
Eng’g (stating that a statute imposing a duty on a public official “must be prescribed in terms sufficient and definite to serve as a guide” for “intelligent execution”); (“[S]tatutory language must be sufficiently definite so that those who are to execute the law may do so
Davis v. Agua Sierra Resources, L.L.C. 203 P.3d 506 Ariz. 2009
Davis v. Agua Sierra Resources, L.L.C. 203 P.3d 506 Ariz. 2009
Third & Catalina Associates v. City of Phoenix 895 P.2d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Third & Catalina Associates v. City of Phoenix 895 P.2d 115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Wagstaff 794 P.2d 118 Ariz. 1990
State v. Wagstaff 794 P.2d 118 Ariz. 1990
Ethridge v. Arizona State Board of Nursing 796 P.2d 899 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Ethridge v. Arizona State Board of Nursing 796 P.2d 899 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
State Compensation Fund v. De La Fuente, 18 Ariz.App.
Aikins v. ARIZ. DEPT. OF WATER RESOURCES 743 P.2d 946 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Aikins v. ARIZ. DEPT. OF WATER RESOURCES 743 P.2d 946 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Cracchiolo v. State 706 P.2d 1219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Cracchiolo v. State 706 P.2d 1219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
J.W. Hancock Enterprises, Inc. v. Arizona State Registrar of Contractors 690 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
J.W. Hancock Enterprises, Inc. v. Arizona State Registrar of Contractors 690 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Batty v. Arizona State Dental Board.
Town of Chino Valley v. City of Prescott 638 P.2d 1324 Ariz. 1981
Town of Chino Valley v. City of Prescott 638 P.2d 1324 Ariz. 1981
we said in holding constitutional the groundwater act of 1948: “The legislative finding that the exhaustion of ground water by excessive withdrawals threatens to destroy one of the principal economic resources of the state to the consequential serious injury of all is not disputed.
Cavco Industries v. INDUS. COM'N OF ARIZ. 631 P.2d 1087 Ariz. 1981
Cavco Industries v. INDUS. COM'N OF ARIZ. 631 P.2d 1087 Ariz. 1981
246 , review denied , , two other “void for vagueness” doctrines independent of due process.
Cohen v. State 588 P.2d 299 Ariz. 1978
Cohen v. State 588 P.2d 299 Ariz. 1978
Cohen v. State 588 P.2d 313 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Cohen v. State 588 P.2d 313 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Farmers Investment Company v. Bettwy 558 P.2d 14 Ariz. 1976
Farmers Investment Company v. Bettwy 558 P.2d 14 Ariz. 1976
Babbitt v. Asta 545 P.2d 58 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Babbitt v. Asta 545 P.2d 58 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. ARIZ. INS. GUAR. ASS'N 528 P.2d 839 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. ARIZ. INS. GUAR. ASS'N 528 P.2d 839 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
: “Merely because the possibility exists that there may be an arbitrary and capricious use of power legitimately delegated under the statute is not sufficient reason to entertain a presumption that the power granted will be so exercised, [citations omitted].” 79 Ariz. at 412 , 291 P.2d at 770 *460
City of Mesa v. Home Builders Ass'n of Central Arizona, Inc. 523 P.2d 57 Ariz. 1974
City of Mesa v. Home Builders Ass'n of Central Arizona, Inc. 523 P.2d 57 Ariz. 1974
Garcia v. Arizona State Liquor Board 520 P.2d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Garcia v. Arizona State Liquor Board 520 P.2d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Edwards v. Alhambra Elementary School District, 15 Ariz.App.
State Compensation Fund v. De La Fuente 501 P.2d 422 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State Compensation Fund v. De La Fuente 501 P.2d 422 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
en it leaves the legislature; so that those charged with the administration of such act are amenable to the courts for failure to put it into effect or for its maladministration, and so that everyone may know by reading the law what his rights are and how it shall operate when put into execution; and the court cannot supply material and essential omissions.” , the Arizona Supreme Court recognized three bases upon which a statute without the requisite definiteness and completeness may be held inv
Edwards v. Alhambra Elementary School District 63 488 P.2d 498 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Edwards v. Alhambra Elementary School District 63 488 P.2d 498 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
State v. Arizona Mines Supply Co. 484 P.2d 619 Ariz. 1971
State v. Arizona Mines Supply Co. 484 P.2d 619 Ariz. 1971
534 .” at 414-415 , at 772 (1955).
Hawes v. Cooper 480 P.2d 1005 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Hawes v. Cooper 480 P.2d 1005 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
See, Mueller v. City of Phoenix, supra; , ; , 179 P. 640 (1919) ; J. R. Francis Const. Co. v. Pima County, 1 Ariz.App.
Courson v. City of Tucson 457 P.2d 346 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Courson v. City of Tucson 457 P.2d 346 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
State v. Superior Court of Pima County 454 P.2d 982 Ariz. 1969
State v. Superior Court of Pima County 454 P.2d 982 Ariz. 1969
As a general rule we do not resolve questions which have been mooted either by the passage of time or the action of an inferior tribunal, , , but where the matter is of considerable public importance or the principle involved is a continuing one, this Court may, in its discretion, decide the issues of law involved.
Itasca State Bank v. Superior Court 445 P.2d 555 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Itasca State Bank v. Superior Court 445 P.2d 555 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
429 , , we recognize exceptions where the principle involved is a continuing one.
Mueller v. City of Phoenix Ex Rel. Phoenix Board of Adjustment II 435 P.2d 472 Ariz. 1967
Mueller v. City of Phoenix Ex Rel. Phoenix Board of Adjustment II 435 P.2d 472 Ariz. 1967