Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Uhlmann v. Wren, 401 P.2d 113.

40 citing documents.

Fred Nackard Land Co. v. City of Flagstaff 238 P.3d 149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Fred Nackard Land Co. v. City of Flagstaff 238 P.3d 149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Washburn v. Pima County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Washburn v. Pima County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Co., see also Standhardt v. Superior Court, ___ Ariz. ___, ¶35
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
Co. , , , (legislature not required to forego measure “simply because it may be somewhat imprecise”).
Home Builders Ass'n v. City of Apache Junction 11 P.3d 1032 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Home Builders Ass'n v. City of Apache Junction 11 P.3d 1032 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
(Bernstein, J., specially concurring) (“Where a municipal corporation is involved, specific legislative authority must be found for all of its activities.”); Shaffer v. Allt, 25 Ariz.App.
Big D Construction Corp. v. Court of Appeals 789 P.2d 1061 Ariz. 1990
Big D Construction Corp. v. Court of Appeals 789 P.2d 1061 Ariz. 1990
Co., -98 , -14 (1988); Arizona Downs, 130 Ariz. at 555-56 , 637 P.2d at 1058-59
Bryant v. Continental Conveyor & Equipment Co. 751 P.2d 509 Ariz. 1988
Bryant v. Continental Conveyor & Equipment Co. 751 P.2d 509 Ariz. 1988
Kenyon v. Hammer 688 P.2d 961 Ariz. 1984
Kenyon v. Hammer 688 P.2d 961 Ariz. 1984
1143 , 43 L.Ed.2d 411 (1975); -90 , -29 (1965).
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
J. C. Penney Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 610 P.2d 471 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
J. C. Penney Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 610 P.2d 471 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
State v. Herrera 588 P.2d 305 Ariz. 1978
State v. Herrera 588 P.2d 305 Ariz. 1978
Flagstaff Vending Co. v. City of Flagstaff 578 P.2d 985 Ariz. 1978
Flagstaff Vending Co. v. City of Flagstaff 578 P.2d 985 Ariz. 1978
Eastin v. Broomfield 570 P.2d 744 Ariz. 1977
Eastin v. Broomfield 570 P.2d 744 Ariz. 1977
1143 , 43 L.Ed.2d 411 (1975)
State v. Kelly 526 P.2d 720 Ariz. 1974
State v. Kelly 526 P.2d 720 Ariz. 1974
And the Fourteenth Amendment does not deny a state the power to classify in the adoption of police law, , , , and a legislative classification will not normally be set aside if any set of facts rationally justifying it- is demonstrated to or perceived by the courts.
Maryland National Insurance v. Ozzie Young Drilling Co. 526 P.2d 402 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Maryland National Insurance v. Ozzie Young Drilling Co. 526 P.2d 402 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
State v. Sanchez 516 P.2d 1226 Ariz. 1973
State v. Sanchez 516 P.2d 1226 Ariz. 1973
we cited the United States Supreme Court in its clear statement concerning the equal protection clause: “ ‘1.
Miller v. SALT RIVER VALLEY WATER USERS'ASS'N 463 P.2d 840 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Miller v. SALT RIVER VALLEY WATER USERS'ASS'N 463 P.2d 840 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
A , , , 217 P. 935 (1923).
State v. Also 463 P.2d 122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
State v. Also 463 P.2d 122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Quimby v. School District No. 21 of Pinal County 455 P.2d 1019 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Quimby v. School District No. 21 of Pinal County 455 P.2d 1019 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
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
Salinas v. Kahn, 2 Ariz.App.
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
This court has had occasion to set forth the history of the Salt River Valley Project and the Salt River Valley Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District in other cases 1 , , .