Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State Ex Rel. Morrison v. Thomas, 297 P.2d 624.

30 citing documents.

State of Arizona Ex Rel Brnovich v. Abor Ariz. 2020
State of Arizona Ex Rel Brnovich v. Abor Ariz. 2020
and (2) it is based on an erroneous understanding of the term “prosecute” in § 41-193(A)(2).
Lunney v. State 418 P.3d 943 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Lunney v. State 418 P.3d 943 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Yes on Prop 200 v. Napolitano 160 P.3d 1216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Yes on Prop 200 v. Napolitano 160 P.3d 1216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co v. Arizona Department of Transportation 838 P.2d 1325 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co v. Arizona Department of Transportation 838 P.2d 1325 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
(all actions of agents of state done within the scope of their authority are acts of their principal, the State of Arizona).
Fund Manager v. Corbin 778 P.2d 1244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Fund Manager v. Corbin 778 P.2d 1244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Fund Manager v. Superior Court, 152 Ariz. at 260 , 731 P.2d at 625 .
Fund Manager, Public Safety Personnel Retirement System v. Superior Court 731 P.2d 620 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Fund Manager, Public Safety Personnel Retirement System v. Superior Court 731 P.2d 620 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Sarwark v. Thorneycroft 596 P.2d 1173 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Sarwark v. Thorneycroft 596 P.2d 1173 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Santa Rita Mining Co. v. Department of Property Valuation 530 P.2d 360 Ariz. 1975
Santa Rita Mining Co. v. Department of Property Valuation 530 P.2d 360 Ariz. 1975
stated: “The next question before this tribunal is whether the Attorney General has the right on behalf of the State to apply for •the writ under the circumstances of this case.
Jones v. Lopez Plascencia 458 P.2d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Jones v. Lopez Plascencia 458 P.2d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
our Supreme Court held in a certiorari proceeding that the superior court had exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering issuance of a liquor license beyond the number permitted by a proper construction of the pertinent statute.
State Racing Commission v. Superior Court 407 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
State Racing Commission v. Superior Court 407 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Arizona State Land Department v. McFate 348 P.2d 912 Ariz. 1960
Arizona State Land Department v. McFate 348 P.2d 912 Ariz. 1960
discussed below j petitioners dispute the applicability of that case to this proceeding.
Midway Enterprises, Inc. v. Krucker 327 P.2d 297 Ariz. 1958
Midway Enterprises, Inc. v. Krucker 327 P.2d 297 Ariz. 1958
wherein we ruled that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction when it misinterpreted section 72-107, 1952 Supp., A.C.A.l939 (now A.R.S.
City of Bisbee v. Williams 317 P.2d 567 Ariz. 1957
City of Bisbee v. Williams 317 P.2d 567 Ariz. 1957
involved an interpretation of our liquor licensing statutes, which set up a quota system for the issuance of certain types of licenses, based on population, and provides : “The population of a county shall be deemed to be its population (as) last determined by the bureau of the census, less the n
State ex rel. Morrison v. Garrett 297 P.2d 631 Ariz. 1956
State ex rel. Morrison v. Thomas 297 P.2d 631 Ariz. 1956
State ex rel. Morrison v. Garrett 297 P.2d 631 Ariz. 1956
In view of the fact that this case differs in no substantial way from the situation in State v. Thomas, 1956, , , we hereby hold that the opinion in said case is controlling here and determinative of this review.
State ex rel. Morrison v. Thomas 297 P.2d 631 Ariz. 1956
In view of the fact that this case differs in no substantial way from the situation in *339 State v. Thomas, 1956, , , we hereby hold that the opinion in said case is controlling here and determinative of this review.