Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Williams v. Parrack, 319 P.2d 989.

26 citing documents.

Roundtree v. Page Ariz. 2025
Roundtree v. Page Ariz. 2025
See, (holding that a proposed initiative setting fire department job classifications and salaries, and repealing prior ordinances, “clearly .
Bicking v. City of Minneapolis 891 N.W.2d 304 Minn. 2017
LEAGUE OF ARIZONA CITIES & TOWNS v. Brewer 146 P.3d 58 Ariz. 2006
LEAGUE OF ARIZONA CITIES & TOWNS v. Brewer 146 P.3d 58 Ariz. 2006
Winkle v. City of Tucson 949 P.2d 502 Ariz. 1997
Winkle v. City of Tucson 949 P.2d 502 Ariz. 1997
In Williams v. Parrack, this court held that, “[w]hile it may entail considerable expense to submit the ordinance to a vote of the people, this court has not the authority to pass upon the validity or invalidity of said ordinance before its enactment into law.”
Robertson v. Graziano 942 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Robertson v. Graziano 942 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
(a measure’s text is part of legislative process and not subject to review before adoption); , (court’s power to halt placing initiative on auto insurance reform on ballot is limited); , (court will enjoin neither city council nor electorate from adopting ordinance if it is legislative and within scope of municipal power).
Airness & Accountability in Insurance Reform v. Greene 886 P.2d 1338 Ariz. 1994
FAIRNESS & ACCT. IN INS. REFORM v. Greene 886 P.2d 1338 Ariz. 1994
FAIRNESS & ACCT. IN INS. REFORM v. Greene 886 P.2d 1338 Ariz. 1994
we held that the Phoenix City Council, in refusing to submit a valid initiative petition to the voters, violated a duty that was purely ministerial.
Wennerstrom v. City of Mesa 821 P.2d 146 Ariz. 1991
Wennerstrom v. City of Mesa 821 P.2d 146 Ariz. 1991
opponents of an initiative that sought to enact a comprehensive scheme of employee classification, hours, salaries, and salary increases for the City’s fire department argued that the proposed measure was not a proper subject for initiative because it was “administrative.” Although the
Dewey v. Jones 767 P.2d 1199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Dewey v. Jones 767 P.2d 1199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
(city charter provision calling for special election on initiative petitions).
Tilson v. Mofford 737 P.2d 1367 Ariz. 1987
Tilson v. Mofford 737 P.2d 1367 Ariz. 1987
-51 , 143 P. 117, 118-19 (1914)
Queen Creek Land & Cattle Corp. v. Yavapai County Board of Supervisors 501 P.2d 391 Ariz. 1972
Queen Creek Land & Cattle Corp. v. Yavapai County Board of Supervisors 501 P.2d 391 Ariz. 1972
City of Scottsdale v. Superior Court 439 P.2d 290 Ariz. 1968
City of Scottsdale v. Superior Court 439 P.2d 290 Ariz. 1968
“supersede [s] any charter then existing (and all amendments thereto), and all ordinances inconsistent with said new charter,” and a proposed city charter is approved by the governor only if it is not in conflict with “this Constitution or with the laws of the State.” City councils have only those powers which are vested in them by the provisions of their city charter, , .
Iman v. Bolin 404 P.2d 705 Ariz. 1965
Iman v. Bolin 404 P.2d 705 Ariz. 1965
Parrack v. City of Phoenix 329 P.2d 1103 Ariz. 1958
Parrack v. City of Phoenix 329 P.2d 1103 Ariz. 1958
This action was taken under a mandate of this court affirming a , .