Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite City of Mesa v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District, 373 P.2d 722.

97 citing documents.

P.F. West, Inc. v. Superior Court 676 P.2d 665 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
P.F. West, Inc. v. Superior Court 676 P.2d 665 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
PF West, Inc. v. SUPER. CT. OF ARIZONA 676 P.2d 665 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. State 662 P.2d 157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. State 662 P.2d 157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. DeBoucher 660 P.2d 471 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
State v. DeBoucher 660 P.2d 471 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement v. City of Phoenix 631 P.2d 553 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement v. City of Phoenix 631 P.2d 553 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Pinetop-Lakeside Sanitary District v. Ferguson 630 P.2d 1036 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Pinetop-Lakeside Sanitary District v. Ferguson 630 P.2d 1036 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Taylor v. Roosevelt Irrigation District; , , Valley National Bank v. Electrical District No. 4
Sende Vista Water Co., Inc. v. City of Phoenix 617 P.2d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Sende Vista Water Co., Inc. v. City of Phoenix 617 P.2d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
appeal dismissed, 372 U.S. 704 , 83 S.Ct.
Niedner v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District 590 P.2d 447 Ariz. 1979
Niedner v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District 590 P.2d 447 Ariz. 1979
” and the provisions of Art. 13, § 7 do not alter the inherent characteristics of the District as “a business corporation with attributes of sovereignty which are only incidental, conferred for the purposes of better enabling it to function and accomplish the business and economic purposes for which it was organized.” 103-4 , 731 (1962).
State v. Denny 569 P.2d 303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Denny 569 P.2d 303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
SALT RIVER VALLEY WATER USERS'ASS'N v. Giglio 549 P.2d 162 Ariz. 1976
SALT RIVER VALLEY WATER USERS'ASS'N v. Giglio 549 P.2d 162 Ariz. 1976
Shirley v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR COUNTY OF APACHE 513 P.2d 939 Ariz. 1973
Shirley v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR COUNTY OF APACHE 513 P.2d 939 Ariz. 1973
Communications Workers of America v. Arizona Board of Regents 498 P.2d 472 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Communications Workers of America v. Arizona Board of Regents 498 P.2d 472 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
The Supreme Court has recognized the proprietary nature of similar municipal corporations in a number of cases which are cited in the Local 266 , and Santa Cruz Irrigation District v. City of Tucson, Ariz.
Lowry v. Tucson Diesel, Inc. 498 P.2d 160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Lowry v. Tucson Diesel, Inc. 498 P.2d 160 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
& Power Dist., , appeal dismissed, 372 U.S. 704 , 83 S.Ct.
Santa Cruz Irrigation District v. City of Tucson 494 P.2d 24 Ariz. 1972
Santa Cruz Irrigation District v. City of Tucson 494 P.2d 24 Ariz. 1972
State Ex Rel. Larson v. Farley 471 P.2d 731 Ariz. 1970
State Ex Rel. Larson v. Farley 471 P.2d 731 Ariz. 1970
& P. Dist., , , we said: “ * * * While a statute may be repealed by implication as well as by direct language, such repeals are not favored and will not be indulged if there is any other reasonable construction.
Lueck v. Superior Court, County of Cochise 469 P.2d 68 Ariz. 1970
Tryon v. Silverstein 455 P.2d 474 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Tryon v. Silverstein 455 P.2d 474 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Although repeals by implication are not favored, and should generally be limited to instances of direct repugnance, City of Mesa v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power Dist., , we find such repugnance between the statutes here involved and hold that enactment of the Uniform Stock Transfer Act has impliedly *31 amended our garnishment statutes to require service of the writ upon the person having possession of the certificate where shares of stock are sought to be garni
Iman v. Southern Pacific Company 435 P.2d 851 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Iman v. Southern Pacific Company 435 P.2d 851 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
& Power Dist., , appeal dismissed 372 U.S. 704 , 83 S.Ct.
Arizona State Board of Directors for Junior Colleges v. Phoenix Union High School District 424 P.2d 819 Ariz. 1967
Arizona State Board of Directors for Junior Colleges v. Phoenix Union High School District 424 P.2d 819 Ariz. 1967
& Power Dist., , ; , .
State v. Berry 419 P.2d 337 Ariz. 1966
State v. Berry 419 P.2d 337 Ariz. 1966
and Power Dist., , , it is also common sense.
City of Mesa v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District 416 P.2d 187 Ariz. 1966
City of Mesa v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District 416 P.2d 187 Ariz. 1966
plaintiff brought an action against defendant for a declaratory judgment to determine the respective rights of the parties to serve electrical energy in certain areas within its corporate limits, including the Báyless Shopping Center.
Uhlmann v. Wren 401 P.2d 113 Ariz. 1965
Uhlmann v. Wren 401 P.2d 113 Ariz. 1965
§ 45-903, subsection A , as follows: *379 “On or about March 22, 1937, the Salt River Valley Water Users Association, subject to the rights of the United States, transferred and assigned all its properties, real and personal, and rights therein, and all water and power rights, franchises and privileges to the District bu
Bogard GMC Co. v. Abril 399 P.2d 189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Bogard GMC Co. v. Abril 399 P.2d 189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Wright v. Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n 384 P.2d 104 Ariz. 1963
Wright v. Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n 384 P.2d 104 Ariz. 1963
Adams v. Salt River Valley Water Users’ Association, , .
Mitchell v. Colquette 379 P.2d 757 Ariz. 1963