Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Selective Life Insurance v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, 422 P.2d 710.

56 citing documents.

Johnson Utilities LLC v. Arizona Corporation Ariz. 2020
Johnson Utilities LLC v. Arizona Corporation Ariz. 2020
of U.S., (stating that “[t]he Arizona Constitution has entrusted the [C]orporation [C]ommission with a certain minimum of power, and the legislature may not detract from this power by placing it in itself .
State v. Rios 237 P.3d 1052 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Rios 237 P.3d 1052 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
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
¶42 , : [Wjhere the valid parts of a statute are effective and enforceable standing alone and independent of those portions declared unconstitutional, the court will not disturb the valid law if the valid and invalid portions are not so intimately connected as to raise the presumption the legi
Maricopa County v. Kinko's Inc. 56 P.3d 70 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Maricopa County v. Kinko's Inc. 56 P.3d 70 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Co. v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y, , ).
State v. Preston 4 P.3d 1004 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
State v. Preston 4 P.3d 1004 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Co. v. Equitable Life As surance Soc’y
Kotterman v. Killian 972 P.2d 606 Ariz. 1999
Tucson Electric Power Co. v. Apache County 912 P.2d 9 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Tucson Electric Power Co. v. Apache County 912 P.2d 9 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Scottsdale Princess Partnership v. Maricopa County 916 P.2d 1084 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Scottsdale Princess Partnership v. Maricopa County 916 P.2d 1084 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State Compensation Fund v. Symington 848 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1993
State Compensation Fund v. Symington 848 P.2d 273 Ariz. 1993
Co. v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y, , we noted that: [W]here the valid parts of a statute are effective and enforceable standing alone and independent of those portions declared unconstitutional, the court will not disturb the valid law if the valid and invalid portions are not so intimately connected as to raise the presu
State v. Ramsey 831 P.2d 408 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Ramsey 831 P.2d 408 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Co. v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y, , : [Wjhere the valid parts of a statute are effective and enforceable standing alone and independent of those portions declared unconstitutional, the court will not disturb the valid law if the valid and invalid portions are not so intimately connected as to raise the presumption the legi
State v. Prentiss 786 P.2d 932 Ariz. 1989
State v. Prentiss 786 P.2d 932 Ariz. 1989
Co. v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y, , : [Wjhere the valid parts of a statute are effective and enforceable standing alone and independent of those portions declared unconstitutional, the court will not disturb the valid law if the valid and invalid portions are not so intimately connected as to raise the presumption the legislature wo
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
Arizona Water Co. v. Arizona Department of Water Resources 770 P.2d 370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Arizona Water Co. v. Arizona Department of Water Resources 770 P.2d 370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Hall v. A.N.R. Freight System, Inc. 717 P.2d 434 Ariz. 1986
Hall v. A.N.R. Freight System, Inc. 717 P.2d 434 Ariz. 1986
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action Nos. JS-4118/JD-529 656 P.2d 1268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action Nos. JS-4118/JD-529 656 P.2d 1268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Polaris International Metals Corp. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 652 P.2d 1023 Ariz. 1982
Polaris International Metals Corp. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 652 P.2d 1023 Ariz. 1982
Continental Bank v. Arizona Department of Revenue 638 P.2d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Continental Bank v. Arizona Department of Revenue 638 P.2d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Cohen v. State 588 P.2d 299 Ariz. 1978
Cohen v. State 588 P.2d 299 Ariz. 1978
State v. Watson 586 P.2d 1253 Ariz. 1978
State v. Watson 586 P.2d 1253 Ariz. 1978
Cohen v. State 588 P.2d 313 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Eastin v. Broomfield 570 P.2d 744 Ariz. 1977
Eastin v. Broomfield 570 P.2d 744 Ariz. 1977
Landgraff v. Wagner 546 P.2d 26 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Landgraff v. Wagner 546 P.2d 26 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Bateman 540 P.2d 732 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
State v. Bateman 540 P.2d 732 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Co. v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y. of United States, , ; Arizona Podiatry Ass’
Padilla v. Industrial Commission 535 P.2d 634 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Padilla v. Industrial Commission 535 P.2d 634 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
State Ex Rel. Berger v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN AND FOR COUNTY OF MARICOPA 476 P.2d 666 Ariz. 1970
State Ex Rel. Berger v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN AND FOR COUNTY OF MARICOPA 476 P.2d 666 Ariz. 1970
Soc., , ; Cooley, Constitutional Limitations Vol.
Board of Supervisors, Pima County v. Robinson 457 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Board of Supervisors, Pima County v. Robinson 457 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
: “In addition, it is well settled in this state that where the valid parts of a statute are effective and enforceable standing alone and independent of those portions declared unconstitutional, the court will not disturb the valid law if the valid and invalid portions are not so intimately connec