Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Arizona State Land Department v. McFate, 348 P.2d 912.

30 citing documents.

State of Arizona Ex Rel Brnovich v. Abor Ariz. 2020
State of Arizona Ex Rel Brnovich v. Abor Ariz. 2020
the appeals court concluded that the Attorney General only possesses authority that is specifically granted by statute and that A.R.S.
State v. Az Regents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Az Regents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
148 (1960) (concluding Attorney General lacked standing to initiate action where Attorney General lacked statutory authorization).
Lunney v. State 418 P.3d 943 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Lunney v. State 418 P.3d 943 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
§ 41-192(A)(1); Arizona State Land Dep’t v. McFate
State v. McCcd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State ex rel. Brnovich v. Maricopa County Community College District Board 395 P.3d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. McCcd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
v. Corbin, and citing Ariz. State Land Dep’t v. McFate, ).
State ex rel. Brnovich v. Maricopa County Community College District Board 395 P.3d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
v. Corbin, , and citing Ariz. State Land Dep’t v. McFate, , ).
Yes on Prop 200 v. Napolitano 160 P.3d 1216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Yes on Prop 200 v. Napolitano 160 P.3d 1216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Ariz. State Land Dep’t v. McFate, -42
Steiger v. Woods 32 P.3d 19 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Steiger v. Woods 32 P.3d 19 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
r, stating: “It is noted by the Arizona Supreme Court there are occasions in which the Attorney General may appear in opposition to particular state agency, such as a county grand jury investigating misconduct on behalf of the State of Arizona in a criminal matter, but these instances were dependent upon specific statutory grants of power.”
State Ex Rel. Woods v. Block 942 P.2d 428 Ariz. 1997
State Ex Rel. Woods v. Block 942 P.2d 428 Ariz. 1997
v. Corbin, , approved in part, , see also Arizona State Land Dep’t v. McFate
Fund Manager v. Corbin 778 P.2d 1244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Fund Manager v. Corbin 778 P.2d 1244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
The Fund Manager’s , is similarly misplaced.
Gershon v. Broomfield 642 P.2d 852 Ariz. 1982
Gershon v. Broomfield 642 P.2d 852 Ariz. 1982
Amphitheater Unified School District No. 10 v. Bret Harte
Amphitheater Unified School District 10 v. Harte 624 P.2d 1281 Ariz. 1981
Amphitheater Unified School District 10 v. Harte 624 P.2d 1281 Ariz. 1981
Santa Rita Mining Co. v. Department of Property Valuation 530 P.2d 360 Ariz. 1975
Santa Rita Mining Co. v. Department of Property Valuation 530 P.2d 360 Ariz. 1975
* * * ” Arizona State Land Department v, McFate
School District No. One of Pima County v. Lohr 498 P.2d 512 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
School District No. One of Pima County v. Lohr 498 P.2d 512 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
our supreme court construed the import of A.R.S.
County of Cochise v. Good 453 P.2d 544 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
County of Cochise v. Good 453 P.2d 544 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
carefully distinguished between the power to “prosecute” and the power to “institute” suits as that power is given to attorneys representing the public, and held that the first does not ordinarily include the second.
Smith v. Superior Court 422 P.2d 123 Ariz. 1967
Smith v. Superior Court 422 P.2d 123 Ariz. 1967
A , , and the statutes of this state makes it clear that he did not.