Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite County of Maricopa v. Anderson, 306 P.2d 268.

28 citing documents.

Orsett/Columbia Ltd. Partnership v. Superior Court 83 P.3d 608 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Orsett/Columbia Ltd. Partnership v. Superior Court 83 P.3d 608 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
“A county is a creature of the state and while no part of sovereignty is vested in the county, it may be given the right to exercise that power [by statute], but in doing so it is acting as the agent of the sovereign state.”
Moschcau v. Mohave County 48 P.3d 1212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Moschcau v. Mohave County 48 P.3d 1212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
-17 , -88 (1938) , the County explains in its brief: [W]e easily deduce from these cases that inasmuch as the power to tax is a sovereign power which counties cannot possess, but one which the Legislature may empower counties to exercise, that there is a distinction between the Legislature enacting a tax
City of Tucson v. Pima County 949 P.2d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
City of Tucson v. Pima County 949 P.2d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
(§ 28-6707 is not “the exclusive method by which boards of supervisors may establish county highways- and condemn property therefor”).
Aitken v. Industrial Commission 904 P.2d 456 Ariz. 1995
Aitken v. Industrial Commission 904 P.2d 456 Ariz. 1995
St. Joseph's Hospital & Medical Center v. Maricopa County 688 P.2d 986 Ariz. 1984
St. Joseph's Hospital & Medical Center v. Maricopa County 688 P.2d 986 Ariz. 1984
El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. State 662 P.2d 157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. State 662 P.2d 157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
The latter are agencies of the state and exercise police and other powers only by grant given either directly or by necessary implication.” , -955 (1932)
Gilbert v. County of Mohave 650 P.2d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Gilbert v. County of Mohave 650 P.2d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
(“[T]he law-making powers of counties are entirely derivative.”); , (“A county is a creature of the state ....”).
State v. Church 504 P.2d 940 Ariz. 1973
State v. Church 504 P.2d 940 Ariz. 1973
SCHOOL DIST. NO. 26 (BOUSE ELEM.) OF YUMA CO. v. Strohm 469 P.2d 826 Ariz. 1970
SCHOOL DIST. NO. 26 (BOUSE ELEM.) OF YUMA CO. v. Strohm 469 P.2d 826 Ariz. 1970
Hart v. Bayless Investment & Trading Company, , ; , .
Rodgers v. Ray 457 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Overruled Rodgers v. Ray 457 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
ighway may be established by adverse user or by prescription.” (Emphasis added) While Tucson Consolidated has never been expressly overruled, , which relied upon Tucson Consolidated in making a similar pronouncement to that quoted above ( 38 Ariz. at 492 , )
Gardiner v. Henderson 443 P.2d 416 Ariz. 1968
Gardiner v. Henderson 443 P.2d 416 Ariz. 1968
It is argued on behalf of respondent that eminent domain is an inherent power in the people, limited only as they may determine in their constitution, , .
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
State Board of Technical Registration v. Bauer 326 P.2d 358 Ariz. 1958
State Board of Technical Registration v. Bauer 326 P.2d 358 Ariz. 1958
McCune v. City of Phoenix 317 P.2d 537 Ariz. 1957
McCune v. City of Phoenix 317 P.2d 537 Ariz. 1957

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by