Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136.

120 citing documents.

State Farm Automobile v. Jacey Lee Orlando Ariz. 2025
State Farm Automobile v. Jacey Lee Orlando Ariz. 2025
2 We have long recognized that the primary purpose of the FRA is “the protection of the public using the highways from financial hardship which may result from the use of automobiles by financially irresponsible persons.” see also State Farm Mut.
Harold Vangilder v. ador/pinal County Ariz. 2022
Harold Vangilder v. ador/pinal County Ariz. 2022
See supra ¶¶ 53–55; (discussing features of a constitutional delegation of authority where statute “contains reasonably definite standards which govern the exercise of the power”).
State v. Panos 366 P.3d 1006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Panos 366 P.3d 1006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
These guarantees do not prohibit all classification of persons, however, but only 3 STATE v. PANOS Opinion of the Court those which are “unreasonable.” Lowery, 230 Ariz. at 541, ¶ 13 ().
State of Arizona v. Kwame Roy Lowery 287 P.3d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Kwame Roy Lowery 287 P.3d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Hernandez v. Lynch 167 P.3d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Hernandez v. Lynch 167 P.3d 1264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
(“Where differing constructions of a statute are possible, it is our duty to construe it in such a manner that it will be constitutional.”) (citing State v. A.J.
Simat Corp. v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System 56 P.3d 28 Ariz. 2002
Norman v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 33 P.3d 530 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Norman v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 33 P.3d 530 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Martin v. Reinstein 987 P.2d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Martin v. Reinstein 987 P.2d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Prudential v. Estate of Rojo-Pacheco 962 P.2d 213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Prudential v. Estate of Rojo-Pacheco 962 P.2d 213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
AA MECHANICAL v. Superior Court 948 P.2d 492 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Roscoe 912 P.2d 1297 Ariz. 1996
State v. Roscoe 912 P.2d 1297 Ariz. 1996
as proof that this court has a duty to construe legislation such as the Implementation Act so as to be constitutional.
State v. Averyt 876 P.2d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Averyt 876 P.2d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Principal Casualty Insurance v. Progressive Casualty Insurance 838 P.2d 1306 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Principal Casualty Insurance v. Progressive Casualty Insurance 838 P.2d 1306 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Its purpose is to protect the motoring public “from financial hardship which may result from the use of automobiles by financially irresponsible persons.”
State v. Padilla 817 P.2d 15 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Padilla 817 P.2d 15 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. Gilmore 796 P.2d 915 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. Gilmore 796 P.2d 915 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
The purpose of the SRA is to protect the public using the highways “from financial hardship which may result from the use of automobiles by financially irresponsible persons.” , see Chase v. State Farm Mut.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Wilson 782 P.2d 727 Ariz. 1989
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Wilson 782 P.2d 727 Ariz. 1989
Id.; , ( , and Jenkins)).
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Wise 721 P.2d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Wise 721 P.2d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
The primary purpose is to provide “security against uncompensated damages arising from operation of motor vehicles on our highways.”
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Fireman's Fund Insurance 717 P.2d 909 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Fireman's Fund Insurance 717 P.2d 909 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
“The fundamental purpose of the SRA [Financial Responsibility Act] is the ‘providing of security against uncompensated damages arising from operation of motor vehicles on our highways.’ ”
Statewide Ins. Corp. v. Dewar 694 P.2d 1167 Ariz. 1984
Cassel v. Schacht 683 P.2d 294 Ariz. 1984
Cassel v. Schacht 683 P.2d 294 Ariz. 1984
Statewide Ins. Corp. v. Dewar 694 P.2d 1167 Ariz. 1984
Such a , 280 n. 3, , 141 n. 3 (1963).
Cassel v. Schacht 683 P.2d 301 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Cassel v. Schacht 683 P.2d 301 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
The Safety Responsibility Act was designed to protect people using the highways “from financial hardship which may result from the use of automobiles by fi *504 nancially irresponsible persons.”
Anderson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 652 P.2d 537 Ariz. 1982
State v. Lycett 650 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Lycett 650 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Chase v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 641 P.2d 1305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Chase v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 641 P.2d 1305 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Wauneka v. Campbell, 22 Ariz.App.
Farmers Insurance v. Erlichman 634 P.2d 582 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Farmers Insurance v. Erlichman 634 P.2d 582 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
State v. Burns 591 P.2d 563 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
State v. Burns 591 P.2d 563 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Campbell v. State, Department of Revenue, Division of Motor Vehicles, 176 Colo.
Transamerica Insurance Company v. McKee 551 P.2d 1324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976