Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Northwestern Mutual Insurance Company, 340 P.2d 200.

26 citing documents.

Mark Gilmore v. Kate Gallego 552 P.3d 1084 Ariz. 2024
Mark Gilmore v. Kate Gallego 552 P.3d 1084 Ariz. 2024
Co., (instructing that we should “strive for a panoptic view of the constitutional facts of a particular transaction and to consider the significance of incidental features according to their appearance in proper perspective” (emphasis added)); see also Turken, 223 Ariz. at 352 ¶ 47 (“Northwestern Mutual used th
Neptune Swimming Foundation v. City of Scottsdale Ariz. 2024
Neptune Swimming Foundation v. City of Scottsdale Ariz. 2024
Co., then quoting Wistuber v. Paradise Valley Unified Sch.
Neptune v. Scottsdale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Neptune v. Scottsdale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Co., or “by giving advantages to special interests,” ¶ 6 (2021) (quoting Wistuber v. Paradise Valley Unified Sch.
Darcie Schires v. Cathy Carlat 480 P.3d 639 Ariz. 2021
Darcie Schires v. Cathy Carlat 480 P.3d 639 Ariz. 2021
Co., or “by giving advantages to special interests,” Wistuber v. Paradise Valley Unified Sch.
cheatham/huey v. Diciccio/phoenix Law Enforcement Association 379 P.3d 211 Ariz. 2016
cheatham/huey v. Diciccio/phoenix Law Enforcement Association 379 P.3d 211 Ariz. 2016
Co., , (using term “panoptic” in rejecting contention that a mutual insurance company’s return of excess premiums to its members, including a school district, established that the initial premium payments violated the Gift Clause).
Turken v. Gordon 224 P.3d 158 Ariz. 2010
Turken v. Gordon 224 P.3d 158 Ariz. 2010
Turken v. Gordon 207 P.3d 709 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Turken v. Gordon 207 P.3d 709 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Co., , (quoting same language).
Kotterman v. Killian 972 P.2d 606 Ariz. 1999
Kotterman v. Killian 972 P.2d 606 Ariz. 1999
Co., , (citation omitted).
Kromko v. Arizona Board of Regents 718 P.2d 478 Ariz. 1986
Kromko v. Arizona Board of Regents 718 P.2d 478 Ariz. 1986
The purpose behind article 9, section 7 is to avoid the “depletion of the public treasury or inflation of public debt by engagement in non-public enterprise.” , , see also City of Tempe v. Pilot Properties, Inc., 22 Ariz.App.
Wistuber v. Paradise Valley Unified School District 687 P.2d 354 Ariz. 1984
Wistuber v. Paradise Valley Unified School District 687 P.2d 354 Ariz. 1984
City of Tempe v. Pilot Properties, Inc. 527 P.2d 515 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
City of Tempe v. Pilot Properties, Inc. 527 P.2d 515 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
The purpose of this constitutional provision, which appears in some form in most states, , quoting from Thaanum v. Bynum Irr.
Industrial Develop. Auth. of Cty. of Pinal v. Nelson 509 P.2d 705 Ariz. 1973
Industrial Develop. Auth. of Cty. of Pinal v. Nelson 509 P.2d 705 Ariz. 1973
Town of Gila Bend v. Walled Lake Door Company 490 P.2d 551 Ariz. 1971
Town of Gila Bend v. Walled Lake Door Company 490 P.2d 551 Ariz. 1971
The evil sought to be avoided by this provision is the “depletion of the public treasury or inflation of public debt by, engagement in non-public enterprise.” at 53 , at 201 (1959).