DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Whitney v. Bolin, 330 P.2d 1003.

26 citing documents.

  • State ex rel. Montgomery v. Mathis 290 P.3d 1226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • State ex rel. Montgomery v. Mathis 290 P.3d 1226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
    mining that because legislation providing coverage of additional risks beyond those specified in constitution would not diminish constitutionally mandated coverage, legislation was appropriate), with Roscoe, 185 Ariz. at 72-73, 912 P.2d at 1301-02 (determining statute restricting constitutional definition of victim improperly eliminated or narrowed rights given by constitution), , (determining statute that penalized an incumbent elected official for seeking nomination to another office by declar
  • Adams v. COM'N ON APPELLATE CT. APPOINTMENTS 254 P.3d 367 Ariz. 2011
  • Adams v. COM'N ON APPELLATE CT. APPOINTMENTS 254 P.3d 367 Ariz. 2011
    See Whitney v. Bolin, 85 Ariz. 44, 47, (Arizona Constitution may prescribe exclusive, controlling qualifications for state officials).
  • ARIZONA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION v. Brewer 243 P.3d 619 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • ARIZONA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION v. Brewer 243 P.3d 619 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    “[T]he power of the legislature is plenary and unless that power is limited by express or inferential provisions of the Constitution, the legislature may enact any law which in its discretion it may desire.” , see also Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n v. Myers, -20, ¶ 10 , -10 (2000) (legislature’s powers are limited only by prohibitions in the state and federal constitutions).
  • Citizens Clean Elections Commission v. Myers 1 P.3d 706 Ariz. 2000
  • Citizens Clean Elections Commission v. Myers 1 P.3d 706 Ariz. 2000
    ¶ 16 , for the proposition that: the enumeration of certain specified things in a constitution will usually be construed to exclude all other things not so enumerated.
  • State v. Preston 4 P.3d 1004 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
  • State v. Preston 4 P.3d 1004 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
  • State v. Moerman 895 P.2d 1018 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. Moerman 895 P.2d 1018 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. Oakley 881 P.2d 366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • State v. Oakley 881 P.2d 366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
    our supreme court was confronted with the question whether a superior court judge who filed nominating papers for the office of justice of the supreme court had forfeited his office under a statute which provided that no incumbent of an elective office was eligible for nomination to any other p
  • Patchell v. State 711 P.2d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • Patchell v. State 711 P.2d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
    It has long been settled that “the power of the legislature is plenary and unless that power is limited by express or inferential provisions of the Constitution, the legislature may enact any law which in its discretion it may desire.”
  • State Ex Rel. Sawyer v. LaSota 580 P.2d 714 Ariz. 1978
  • State Ex Rel. Sawyer v. LaSota 580 P.2d 714 Ariz. 1978
    No citation of authority is necessary here.” , we said: “It is our opinion that the constitutional specifications are exclusive and the legislature has no power to add new or different ones.
  • Harris v. Maehling 545 P.2d 47 Ariz. 1976
  • Harris v. Maehling 545 P.2d 47 Ariz. 1976
    r may after the close of such legislative session appoint the nominee to serve for the term, or, in case of a vacancy, for the unexpired term in which the vacancy occurred.” “[T]he power of the legislature is plenary and unless that power is limited by express or inferential provisions of the Constitution, the legislature may enact any law which in its discretion it may desire.”
  • In Re One 1965 Ford Mustang 463 P.2d 827 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Lewis 463 P.2d 827 Ariz. 1970
  • In Re One 1965 Ford Mustang 463 P.2d 827 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Lewis 463 P.2d 827 Ariz. 1970
    “Where differing constructions of a statute are possible, it is our duty to construe it in such a manner that it will be constitutional, State v. A. J. Bayless Markets, Inc., , ” See also: , ; , ; State Bd.
  • State Ex Rel. Pickrell v. Senner 375 P.2d 728 Ariz. 1962
  • State Ex Rel. Pickrell v. Senner 375 P.2d 728 Ariz. 1962