Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Giss v. Jordan, 309 P.2d 779.

53 citing documents.

Az Petition Partners v. Hon. thompson/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Az Petition Partners v. Hon. thompson/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
(noting that the legislature alone decides “questions of the wisdom, justice, policy or expediency of a statute”).
Qasimyar v. Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Qasimyar v. Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
(“The questions of the wisdom, justice, policy or expediency of a statute are for the legislature alone.”).
State of Arizona v. Christopher Arevalo 470 P.3d 644 Ariz. 2020
State of Arizona v. Christopher Arevalo 470 P.3d 644 Ariz. 2020
A constitutional attack upon a statute triggers several “cardinal rules.”
Cave Creek Unified School District v. Ducey 308 P.3d 1152 Ariz. 2013
Cave Creek Unified School District v. Ducey 308 P.3d 1152 Ariz. 2013
hav[ing] prospective implications.” Bogan v. Scott-Harris, 523 U.S. 44, 55–56 (1998); (“The questions of the wisdom, justice, policy or expediency of a statute are for the legislature alone.”).
Seisinger v. Siebel 203 P.3d 483 Ariz. 2009
Seisinger v. Siebel 203 P.3d 483 Ariz. 2009
Patterson v. Mahoney 199 P.3d 708 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Patterson v. Mahoney 199 P.3d 708 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
at ¶ 5, ( , -84 (1957)).
City of Phoenix v. Fields 193 P.3d 782 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
City of Phoenix v. Fields 193 P.3d 782 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
392, 398 (1973) (stating that the right to file a class action “originates from equitable concepts”), and it is not our function to question the wisdom of a legislative enactment, , (“The questions of the wisdom, justice, policy or expediency of a statute are for the legislature alone.”).
Heatec, Inc. v. R.W. Beckett Corp. 197 P.3d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Heatec, Inc. v. R.W. Beckett Corp. 197 P.3d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
(“The questions of the wisdom, justice, policy or expediency of a statute are for the legislature alone.”); Schritter, 201 Ariz. at 394, ¶ 17 , 36 P.3d at 742 (explaining that the policy argument raised by amicus should be addressed to the legislature rather than the court).
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Rayes 141 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Rayes 141 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
except as the Constitution authorizes it, neither [branch] can exercise any power which directly or indirectly tends to limit the constitutional independence and power of the other branches of government.”); , (“It is very essential that the sharp separation of powers of government be carefully preserved by the courts to the end that one branch of government shall not be permitted to unconstitutionally encroach upon the functions properly belonging to another branch, for only in this manner c
Roosevelt Elementary School District No. 66 v. State 74 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Roosevelt Elementary School District No. 66 v. State 74 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
“Generally, every legislative act is presumed to be constitutional and every intendment must be indulged in by the courts in favor of validity of such an act.”
Trust v. County of Yuma 69 P.3d 510 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Trust v. County of Yuma 69 P.3d 510 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
¶ 4 , , , (1957) (“The questions of the wisdom, justice, policy or expediency of a statute are for the legislature alone.”).
State Ex Rel. Napolitano v. Brown 982 P.2d 815 Ariz. 1999
State Ex Rel. Napolitano v. Brown 982 P.2d 815 Ariz. 1999
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community v. Hull 945 P.2d 818 Ariz. 1997
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community v. Hull 945 P.2d 818 Ariz. 1997
State v. Ramsey 831 P.2d 408 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Ramsey 831 P.2d 408 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
We have long recognized that “[i]t is essential that sharp separation of powers be carefully preserved by courts____” Jones, 142 Ariz. at 304 , 689 P.2d at 563 ( , ).
State v. Wagstaff 794 P.2d 118 Ariz. 1990
State v. Wagstaff 794 P.2d 118 Ariz. 1990
(quoting Wayman v. South-ard, 10 Wheat.
State v. Coats 797 P.2d 693 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Coats 797 P.2d 693 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Larson 764 P.2d 749 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
State v. Larson 764 P.2d 749 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
State v. Fowler 752 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Fowler 752 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Cooper v. Arizona Bd. of Pardons and Paroles 717 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1986
J.W. Hancock Enterprises, Inc. v. Arizona State Registrar of Contractors 690 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
J.W. Hancock Enterprises, Inc. v. Arizona State Registrar of Contractors 690 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
State v. Jones 689 P.2d 561 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
State v. Jones 689 P.2d 561 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Turner v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN AND FOR COUNTY FOR PIMA 415 P.2d 129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Turner v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN AND FOR COUNTY FOR PIMA 415 P.2d 129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
our Supreme Court said: "The Arizona Legislature is vested with the legislative power of the state, and has plenary power to deal with any subject within the scope of civil government unless it is restrained by the provisions of the Constitution."
Austin v. Campbell 370 P.2d 769 Ariz. 1962
Austin v. Campbell 370 P.2d 769 Ariz. 1962
This is a taxpayer’s action to recover for the State of Arizona certain expense reimbursements audited, paid out and received pursuant to a
Forman v. Creighton School District No. 14 351 P.2d 165 Ariz. 1960
Forman v. Creighton School District No. 14 351 P.2d 165 Ariz. 1960
Hart v. Bayless Investment & Trading Company 346 P.2d 1101 Ariz. 1959
Hart v. Bayless Investment & Trading Company 346 P.2d 1101 Ariz. 1959
Whitney v. Bolin 330 P.2d 1003 Ariz. 1958

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by