Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Ward v. Stevens, 344 P.2d 491.

61 citing documents.

Ironwood Commons Cmty. Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Randall 439 P.3d 1193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Ironwood Commons Cmty. Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Randall 439 P.3d 1193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
1 We relied on Ward v. Stevens , , which involved a challenge to a superior court discovery order issued by a Maricopa County Superior Court judge in a lawsuit pending in Pinal County Superior Court.
Arizona City Sanitary Dist. v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Arizona City Sanitary Dist. v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Cain v. Horne 183 P.3d 1269 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Cain v. Horne 183 P.3d 1269 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees v. City of Phoenix 142 P.3d 234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees v. City of Phoenix 142 P.3d 234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Arpaio, 201 Ariz. at 355, ¶ 5 , 35 P.3d at 116 .
Renee Antonio Fragoso v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Renee Antonio Fragoso v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
“‘[W]hen a constitutional provision is clear on its face and is logically capable of only one interpretation,’ we simply 16 follow that text.”
Arizona State Democratic Party v. State 98 P.3d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Arizona State Democratic Party v. State 98 P.3d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Dickey Ex Rel. Dickey v. City of Flagstaff 66 P.3d 44 Ariz. 2003
Dickey Ex Rel. Dickey v. City of Flagstaff 66 P.3d 44 Ariz. 2003
Circle K Stores, Inc. v. Apache County 18 P.3d 713 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Circle K Stores, Inc. v. Apache County 18 P.3d 713 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
(“[W]hen a constitutional provision is clear on its face and is logically capable of only one interpretation, no extrinsic matter may be shown in support of a construction which would vary its apparent meaning.”).
Clouse Ex Rel. Clouse v. State 16 P.3d 757 Ariz. 2001
Clouse Ex Rel. Clouse v. State 16 P.3d 757 Ariz. 2001
shington interpreting an identical provision of its state constitution); -72 , (construing article VI, the court held that the decisions from Washington and California, so far as they declare or indicate the views in those jurisdictions on the question at issue, are very persuasive), , , (noting that decisions from the State of Washington are persuasive while construing article II, section 17 of the Arizona Constitution); , (same).
Clouse v. State 11 P.3d 1012 Ariz. 2000
Clouse v. State 11 P.3d 1012 Ariz. 2000
shington interpreting an identical provision of its state constitution); -72 , (construing article VI, the court held that the decisions from Washington and California, so far as they declare or indicate the views in those jurisdictions on the question at issue, are very persuasive), , , (noting that decisions from the State of Washington are persuasive while construing article II, section 17 of the Arizona Constitution); , (same).
JC Penney v. Lane 3 P.3d 1033 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
JC Penney v. Lane 3 P.3d 1033 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
In Re Cameron T. 949 P.2d 545 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
In Re Cameron T. 949 P.2d 545 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
-29 , (endorsing use of publicity pamphlet to determine intent of amendment); A.R.S.
Jett v. City of Tucson 882 P.2d 426 Ariz. 1994
Jett v. City of Tucson 882 P.2d 426 Ariz. 1994
McElhaney Cattle Co., 132 Ariz. at 290 , 645 P.2d at 805 , citing American Bus Lines, Inc. v. Corporation Comm’n
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Apache County 831 P.2d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Apache County 831 P.2d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Perini Land & Development Co. v. Pima County 825 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1992
Knapp v. Martone 823 P.2d 685 Ariz. 1992
Perini Land & Development Co. v. Pima County 825 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1992
Benjamin v. Arizona Department of Revenue 786 P.2d 1033 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Benjamin v. Arizona Department of Revenue 786 P.2d 1033 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Bussanich v. Douglas 733 P.2d 644 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Bussanich v. Douglas 733 P.2d 644 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Laos v. Arnold 685 P.2d 111 Ariz. 1984
Laos v. Arnold 685 P.2d 111 Ariz. 1984
See McElhaney Cattle Co. v. Smith, supra; American Bus Lines, Inc. v. Arizona Corporation Comm’n
Greehling v. State 662 P.2d 1028 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Greehling v. State 662 P.2d 1028 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
McElhaney Cattle Co. v. Smith 645 P.2d 801 Ariz. 1982
McElhaney Cattle Co. v. Smith 645 P.2d 801 Ariz. 1982
American Bus Lines, Inc. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 633 P.2d 404 Ariz. 1981
American Bus Lines, Inc. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 633 P.2d 404 Ariz. 1981
Rodieck v. Rodieck 450 P.2d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Rodieck v. Rodieck 450 P.2d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
State Ex Rel. Nelson v. Jordan 449 P.2d 18 Ariz. 1968
State Ex Rel. Nelson v. Jordan 449 P.2d 18 Ariz. 1968
33 A.L.R.2d 1102 ; McCurtain County Excise Bd.
State v. Boggs 441 P.2d 778 Ariz. 1968
State v. Boggs 441 P.2d 778 Ariz. 1968
Genda v. Superior Court, County of Pima 439 P.2d 811 Ariz. 1968