Cited by

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

76 citing documents.

State v. Bartos 423 P.2d 713 Ariz. 1967
State v. Bartos 423 P.2d 713 Ariz. 1967
Burke v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN AND FOR COUNTY OF PIMA 416 P.2d 997 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
State Ex Rel. Lassen v. Harpham 410 P.2d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
State Ex Rel. Lassen v. Harpham 410 P.2d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
eral community dictated the preservation of such water supplies through the development of “reasonable regulations for the designation and establishment of such critical groundwater areas as may now or hereafter exist within the state.” , as follows: “We are of the opinion that there is a preponderant public concern in the preservation of the lands presently in cultivation as against lands potentially reclaimable, and that where as here the choice is unavoidable because a supply of water is not
J. R. Francis Construction Co. v. Pima County 403 P.2d 934 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
J. R. Francis Construction Co. v. Pima County 403 P.2d 934 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
256 P. 113 [1927] ; , [1955] ; 5 Am.
Schecter v. Killingsworth 380 P.2d 136 Ariz. 1963
Schecter v. Killingsworth 380 P.2d 136 Ariz. 1963
this Court said: *286 ■“We note also a distinct modern tendency to be more liberal in the granting of discretion in the administration of laws in fields where the complexities of economic and governmental conditions have increased, particularly where it is impractical to lay down a comprehensive
State Ex Rel. Morrison v. Anway 349 P.2d 774 Ariz. 1960
State Ex Rel. Morrison v. Anway 349 P.2d 774 Ariz. 1960
This court held that the Act was constitutional, stating that "it should be emphasized that in critical areas the Act does not purport to regulate the use of ground water between owners of land in cultivation, * * , .
Smith v. Connor 347 P.2d 568 Ariz. 1959
Smith v. Connor 347 P.2d 568 Ariz. 1959
State v. Wacker 344 P.2d 1004 Ariz. 1959
State v. Wacker 344 P.2d 1004 Ariz. 1959
On the other hand, , , we upheld the constitutionality of those sections of the groundwater code which required, upon a finding by the State Land Commissioner of a critical groundwater condition, a declaration of a critical groundwater area and then the drilling of further irrigation wells was by operation of law forbidden
Parrack v. City of Phoenix 329 P.2d 1103 Ariz. 1958
Police Pension Board for City of Tucson v. Denney 330 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1958
Parrack v. City of Phoenix 329 P.2d 1103 Ariz. 1958
and cases cited therein.
Police Pension Board for City of Tucson v. Denney 330 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1958
Co., , , , , there can be no doubt as to the reasonableness of the foundation for such a classification.
State Board of Technical Registration v. McDaniel 326 P.2d 348 Ariz. 1958
State Board of Technical Registration v. McDaniel 326 P.2d 348 Ariz. 1958
Valley National Bank v. First National Bank 320 P.2d 689 Ariz. 1958
Valley National Bank v. First National Bank 320 P.2d 689 Ariz. 1958
VANTEX LAND AND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY v. Schnepf 308 P.2d 254 Ariz. 1957
Ernst v. Collins 302 P.2d 941 Ariz. 1956
Ernst v. Collins 302 P.2d 941 Ariz. 1956
The problem here presented is a matter of first impression, , , wherein the Act of 1848, Laws 1948, 6th Sp.Sess., c. 5, was held constitutional.