Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite County of Apache v. Southwest Lumber Mills, Inc., 376 P.2d 854.

36 citing documents.

Knight v. Fontes Ariz. 2025
Knight v. Fontes Ariz. 2025
State of Arizona v. William Mixton Ariz. 2021
State of Arizona v. William Mixton Ariz. 2021
Lumber Mills, Inc., ), and our focus is on their meaning at the time the Constitution was adopted.
Jeremy v. v. Judith H., K.V. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Jeremy v. v. Judith H., K.V. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Lumber Mills, Inc., ); see also A.R.S.
State of Arizona v. John David Franklin, Sr. & John David Franklin, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. John David Franklin, Sr. & John David Franklin, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Lumber Mills, Inc., -56 (1962) (“nearly contemporaneous legislative act interpreting a new constitutional provision will, after acquiescence in this interpretation by the interested parties for a period of years, be highly persuasive as the correct interpretation”); 214 P.
Empress Adult Video & Bookstore v. City of Tucson 59 P.3d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Empress Adult Video & Bookstore v. City of Tucson 59 P.3d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
¶ 5 The cardinal rule of constitutional construction directs us to “follow the text and the intent of the framers, where it can be ascertained.” Fain Land & , see also County of Apache v. Southwest Lumber Mills, Inc., , (governing principle of constitutional construction is to give effect to framers’ intent and purpose); S.A.
Kotterman v. Killian 972 P.2d 606 Ariz. 1999
Kotterman v. Killian 972 P.2d 606 Ariz. 1999
We must therefore look to their “natural, obvious and ordinary meaning.” , , (“When the words of a constitutional provision are not defined within it, the meaning to be ascribed to the words is that which is generally understood and used by the people.”); Dunn v. Industrial Co
Airport Properties v. Maricopa County 985 P.2d 574 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Airport Properties v. Maricopa County 985 P.2d 574 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Apache County v. Southwest Lumber Mills, Inc.
Ruiz v. Hull 957 P.2d 984 Ariz. 1998
Ruiz v. Hull 957 P.2d 984 Ariz. 1998
County of Apache v. Southwest Lumber Mills, Inc.
Jett v. City of Tucson 882 P.2d 426 Ariz. 1994
Jett v. City of Tucson 882 P.2d 426 Ariz. 1994
citing Apache County v. Southwest Lumber Mills, Inc.
Sa v. Superior Ct. in and for Cty. of Maricopa 831 P.2d 1297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Sa v. Superior Ct. in and for Cty. of Maricopa 831 P.2d 1297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Examination of the publicity pamphlet to which Arizona courts repeatedly have referred in analyzing the drafters’ intent and interpreting provisions of the Arizona Constitution, , , County of Apache v. Southwest Lumber Mills, Inc., , , yields nothing to cloud the apparent meaning.
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
See, , Apache County v. Southwest Lumber Mills, Inc.
Fain Land & Cattle Co. v. Hassell 790 P.2d 242 Ariz. 1990
Fain Land & Cattle Co. v. Hassell 790 P.2d 242 Ariz. 1990
See, e.g., County of Apache v. Southwest Lumber Mills, Inc., , (“The governing principle of constitutional construction is to give effect to the intent and purpose of the framers of the constitutional provision and of the people who adopted it.”).
Boswell v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 730 P.2d 186 Ariz. 1986
Boswell v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 730 P.2d 186 Ariz. 1986
County of Apache v. Southwest Lumber Mills, Inc.
McElhaney Cattle Co. v. Smith 645 P.2d 801 Ariz. 1982
McElhaney Cattle Co. v. Smith 645 P.2d 801 Ariz. 1982
County of Apache v. Southwest Lumber Mills, Inc., , State ex rel.
McElhaney Cattle Co. v. Smith 645 P.2d 821 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
McElhaney Cattle Co. v. Smith 645 P.2d 821 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
See County of Apache v. Southwest Lumber Mills, Inc.
Carpio v. TUCSON HIGH SCH. DIST. NO 1 OF PIMA CTY. 517 P.2d 1288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
Carpio v. TUCSON HIGH SCH. DIST. NO 1 OF PIMA CTY. 517 P.2d 1288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
County of Apache v. Southwest Lumber Mills, Inc.
NELSON MACHINERY COMPANY v. Yavapai County 491 P.2d 1132 Ariz. 1971
NELSON MACHINERY COMPANY v. Yavapai County 491 P.2d 1132 Ariz. 1971
Apache County v. Southwest Lumber Mills, Inc.
State Ex Rel. Nelson v. Jordan 449 P.2d 18 Ariz. 1968
State Ex Rel. Nelson v. Jordan 449 P.2d 18 Ariz. 1968
County of Apache v. Southwest Lumber Mills, Inc., , ; Cooley, supra, at pp. 124-127.