Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Iman v. Bolin, 404 P.2d 705.

40 citing documents.

Jaime a Molera v. Katie Hobbs 474 P.3d 667 Ariz. 2020
Jaime a Molera v. Katie Hobbs 474 P.3d 667 Ariz. 2020
–65 (1965) (“[E]ven were the measure in conflict with the Constitution, this has no bearing on the right of the people to enact it.
Louis Hoffman v. Michele Reagan 429 P.3d 70 Ariz. 2018
Louis Hoffman v. Michele Reagan 429 P.3d 70 Ariz. 2018
See Citizens Clean Elections Com’n v. Myers, ¶ 35 (2000) (single subject rule “applies only to the acts of the legislature”); (single subject rule is “applicable only to acts of the legislature”); -57 (1932) (same).
Chamber of Commerce v. Hon. kiley/state 399 P.3d 80 Ariz. 2017
Chamber of Commerce v. Hon. kiley/state 399 P.3d 80 Ariz. 2017
See Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n v. Myers, ¶ 36 (2000); -56 (1932).
Parker, Springer Jr., Anderson v. Committee for Sustainable Retirement in Support of Initiative 314 P.3d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Parker, Springer Jr., Anderson v. Committee for Sustainable Retirement in Support of Initiative 314 P.3d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
.’” Kromko, 168 Ariz. at 58, 811 P.2d at 19, (alterations in Kromko).
Ann-Eve Pedersen v. Ken Bennett 288 P.3d 760 Ariz. 2012
Ann-Eve Pedersen v. Ken Bennett 288 P.3d 760 Ariz. 2012
LEAGUE OF ARIZONA CITIES & TOWNS v. Brewer 146 P.3d 58 Ariz. 2006
LEAGUE OF ARIZONA CITIES & TOWNS v. Brewer 146 P.3d 58 Ariz. 2006
Feldmeier v. Watson 123 P.3d 180 Ariz. 2005
Feldmeier v. Watson 123 P.3d 180 Ariz. 2005
when the petition did not contain a clear title, but a title could be found by looking at the formatting of the petition, the petition substantially complied); Kromko, 168 Ariz. at 58-61, 811 P.2d at 19-22 (finding substantial compliance when the petitions included non-fraudulent extraneous short titles, which were neither authorized nor prohibited by the constitution or statutes); (holding that the Secretary of State had substantially complied with requirements when he had omitted some language
Citizens Clean Elections Commission v. Myers 1 P.3d 706 Ariz. 2000
Citizens Clean Elections Commission v. Myers 1 P.3d 706 Ariz. 2000
we held that article IV, section 13 applies only to the acts of the legislature, and not to initiative measures.
Winkle v. City of Tucson 949 P.2d 502 Ariz. 1997
Winkle v. City of Tucson 949 P.2d 502 Ariz. 1997
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community v. Hull 945 P.2d 818 Ariz. 1997
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community v. Hull 945 P.2d 818 Ariz. 1997
See Ariz. Const. art. IV, part 1, § 1(2); Queen Creek Land &amp
Kromko v. Superior Court 811 P.2d 12 Ariz. 1991
Kromko v. Superior Court 811 P.2d 12 Ariz. 1991
Tilson v. Mofford 737 P.2d 1367 Ariz. 1987
Tilson v. Mofford 737 P.2d 1367 Ariz. 1987
Before an election, the court’s authority to intervene and enjoin the enactment of an initiative is limited to those instances “where an initiative petition is defective in form or does not bear the number of signatures of qualified electors required by Article 4, Part 1, § 1, Constitution of Arizona, or where the prescribed procedure has not been followed—” , see also Williams v. Par- *471 rack, 83 Ariz. at 231 , 319 P.2d at 991 .
Saggio v. Connelly 709 P.2d 874 Ariz. 1985
Saggio v. Connelly 709 P.2d 874 Ariz. 1985
“Only after legislation becomes law will its constitutionality be tested.”
Cottonwood Development v. Foothills Area Coalition of Tucson, Inc. 653 P.2d 694 Ariz. 1982
Cottonwood Development v. Foothills Area Coalition of Tucson, Inc. 653 P.2d 694 Ariz. 1982
First, FACT, , , contends that substantial compliance is sufficient, as those cases state that a petition need only contain “some title and some text.” We do not agree.
Arizona Downs v. Superior Court of Ariz. 623 P.2d 1229 Ariz. 1981
Arizona Downs v. Superior Court of Ariz. 623 P.2d 1229 Ariz. 1981
Town of Paradise Valley v. Gulf Leisure Corp. 557 P.2d 532 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Town of Paradise Valley v. Gulf Leisure Corp. 557 P.2d 532 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
v. City of Phoenix, , , , 8A McQuillin, The Law of Municipal Corporations, § 25.302 (3d ed. 1965).
Citizens for Orderly Development & Environment v. City of Phoenix 540 P.2d 1239 Ariz. 1975
Citizens for Orderly Development & Environment v. City of Phoenix 540 P.2d 1239 Ariz. 1975
Queen Creek Land & Cattle Corp. v. Yavapai County Board of Supervisors 501 P.2d 391 Ariz. 1972
Queen Creek Land & Cattle Corp. v. Yavapai County Board of Supervisors 501 P.2d 391 Ariz. 1972
In Imán v. Bolin, , this Court reaffirmed yet again its reluctance to interfere with direct legislation by the people: “Moreover, even were the measure in conflict with the Constitution, this has no bearing on the right of the people to enact it .
Bolin v. Superior Court 449 P.2d 4 Ariz. 1969
Bolin v. Superior Court 449 P.2d 4 Ariz. 1969
While it has been the practice in this State that initiative and referendum actions have been brought against the Secretary of State, and not against the proponents of a measure ( , ; , , 33 A.L.R.2d 1102 ; , .), the facts in the instant case are different from those in previous cases.
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

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by