Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite McCune v. City of Phoenix, 317 P.2d 537.

44 citing documents.

Karen Fann v. State of Arizona 493 P.3d 246 Ariz. 2021
Karen Fann v. State of Arizona 493 P.3d 246 Ariz. 2021
(“[T]he problem is twofold: the legislature must have intended that the act be separable, and the act must be capable of separation in fact.” (quoting 2 Sutherland, Statutory Construction § 44.03 (4th ed. 1986))); (“Generally, we have said that if the valid parts are independently effective and enforceable as law .
Randolph v. Groscost 989 P.2d 751 Ariz. 1999
Randolph v. Groscost 989 P.2d 751 Ariz. 1999
Northwest Fire District v. City of Tucson 912 P.2d 1331 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
Northwest Fire District v. City of Tucson 912 P.2d 1331 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
It is next argued, , that one spouse has authority to sign for the other.
Campana v. Arizona State Land Department 860 P.2d 1341 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Campana v. Arizona State Land Department 860 P.2d 1341 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
City of Phoenix v. Town of Cave Creek 805 P.2d 1048 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
City of Phoenix v. Town of Cave Creek 805 P.2d 1048 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Ferree v. City of Yuma 603 P.2d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Ferree v. City of Yuma 603 P.2d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Glick v. Town of Gilbert 599 P.2d 848 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Glick v. Town of Gilbert 599 P.2d 848 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
State v. Town of Benson, Cochise County
Geronimo Hotel, Inc. v. City of Tucson 591 P.2d 72 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Geronimo Hotel, Inc. v. City of Tucson 591 P.2d 72 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
The provisions of § 59-601 have been the subject of a , in which the supreme court held unconstitutional so much of the statute as permitted the fixing of compensation by the board of supervisors for land taken or damaged, but upheld as separable from the offensive portions those provisions for the establishment, alteration and abandonment of roads.
State v. Williams 583 P.2d 251 Ariz. 1978
State v. Williams 583 P.2d 251 Ariz. 1978
State v. Snyder 544 P.2d 230 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Snyder 544 P.2d 230 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Our Supreme Court has announced a , : “We have several times announced the guide to determine whether such a separation may be made without voiding the entire statute.
City of Douglas v. City of Sierra Vista 515 P.2d 896 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
City of Douglas v. City of Sierra Vista 515 P.2d 896 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
in which our Supreme Court said: “There are one or two possible minor deviations but we think from the de *73 scriptions, the map, and the testimony in explanation thereof, the boundaries to be annexed can be accurately determined.” The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
State Ex Rel. Berger v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN AND FOR COUNTY OF MARICOPA 476 P.2d 666 Ariz. 1970
State Ex Rel. Berger v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN AND FOR COUNTY OF MARICOPA 476 P.2d 666 Ariz. 1970
this court stated: “Whether the entire proceeding of the board is of no effect depends upon whether the invalid features of the statute are separable from the valid features so that the inoffensive portion may remain as law.
City of Tucson v. Morgan 475 P.2d 285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
City of Tucson v. Morgan 475 P.2d 285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
This procedure, whereby the Board of Supervisors condemns the property and assesses damages, was declared unconstitutional since it violated the above provision of the Constitution which states that compensation “shall be ascertained by a jury” (unless waived) as in other civil cases “in courts of record, in the manner prescribed by law.”
Board of Supervisors, Pima County v. Robinson 457 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Board of Supervisors, Pima County v. Robinson 457 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Alabam’s , 242 P. 658 ; , 194 P. 1101 ; , 146 P. 494 .” 101 Ariz., at 599 , 422 P.2d, at 715 .
City of Tucson v. Melnykovich 457 P.2d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
City of Tucson v. Melnykovich 457 P.2d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
*147 In 1957, , , which, in language that is interpreted in contradictory ways by the parties here, held unconstitutional the provisions of the former statute permitting the fixing of compensation by the board of supervisors for land taken or damaged.
Lord v. Arizona Corp. Commission 449 P.2d 51 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Lord v. Arizona Corp. Commission 449 P.2d 51 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
' , and similar decisions.
Selective Life Insurance v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States 422 P.2d 710 Ariz. 1967
Selective Life Insurance v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States 422 P.2d 710 Ariz. 1967
Alabam’s , 242 P. 658 ; , 194 P. 1101 ; , 146 P. 494 .
Town of Scottsdale v. State 405 P.2d 871 Ariz. 1965
Town of Scottsdale v. State 405 P.2d 871 Ariz. 1965
Helm v. Town of Benson, Cochise County
State v. Town of Benson, Cochise County 387 P.2d 807 Ariz. 1963
State v. Town of Benson, Cochise County 387 P.2d 807 Ariz. 1963
State ex rel. Helm v. Town of Benson 381 P.2d 760 Ariz. 1963
State ex rel. Helm v. Town of Benson 381 P.2d 760 Ariz. 1963
Killingsworth v. West Way Motors, Inc. 347 P.2d 1098 Ariz. 1959
Killingsworth v. West Way Motors, Inc. 347 P.2d 1098 Ariz. 1959
Pima County v. Cappony 321 P.2d 1015 Ariz. 1958
Pima County v. Cappony 321 P.2d 1015 Ariz. 1958
Since this case was tried, the question has been answered adversely to the contentions *350 , .