Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Brewer v. Burns, 213 P.3d 671.
- WALDEN v. MESA UNIFIED Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
-
WALDEN v. MESA UNIFIED
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶ 12 (2009) 11 WALDEN, et al. v. MESA UNIFIED, et al. Opinion of the Court (“To have standing, a party generally must allege a particularized injury that would be remediable by judicial decision.”).
- Montenegro v. Fontes Ariz. 2025
- Montenegro v. Fontes Ariz. 2025
- Puente v. Asl Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
- Puente v. Asl Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
- Arizona School Boards Assoc v. State Ariz. 2022
- Arizona School Boards Assoc v. State Ariz. 2022
- Mills v. Abotr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
-
Mills v. Abotr
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶ 12 (2009) (Standing requires a party to “allege a particularized injury that would be remedial by judicial decision.”).4 CONCLUSION ¶34 The dismissal is affirmed.
- Arizonans for Second Chances v. Hobbs Ariz. 2020
-
Arizonans for Second Chances v. Hobbs
Ariz. 2020
See Dobson, 233 Ariz. at 121 ¶ 7 (granting special action jurisdiction where some facts were disputed, but the resolution did not turn on disputed facts); ¶¶ 8–9 (2009) (granting special action jurisdiction and noting that the relevant facts were undisputed even though one party claimed “intense fact questions”).
- Vangilder v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
-
Vangilder v. Pinal County
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
v. Kiley, ¶ 9 (2017) ( ¶ 26 (2009)); see also A.R.S.
- Brush & Nib v. City of Phoenix Ariz. 2019
- Brush & Nib v. City of Phoenix Ariz. 2019
- Biggs v. betlach/macias Ariz. 2017
-
Biggs v. betlach/macias
Ariz. 2017
¶10 “The Constitution should be construed so as to ascertain and give effect to the intent and purpose of the framers and the people who adopted it.” ¶ 26 (2009) (internal citation and quotation omitted).
- 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
¶9 We construe § 23(A) “to ascertain and give effect to the intent and purpose of the framers and the people who adopted it.” ¶ 26 (2009) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
- Simpson v. Miller ex rel. County of Maricopa 387 P.3d 1270 Ariz. 2017
- Jason Donald simpson/joe Paul Martinez v. Hons. miller/steinle/state Ariz. 2017
- Simpson v. Miller ex rel. County of Maricopa 387 P.3d 1270 Ariz. 2017
- Jason Donald simpson/joe Paul Martinez v. Hons. miller/steinle/state Ariz. 2017
- Biggs v. cooper/brewer 323 P.3d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-
Biggs v. cooper/brewer
323 P.3d 1166
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Although standing questions are usually resolved before substantive questions, -39, ¶¶ 10-22, -76 (2009), the legal basis for the trial court’s ruling compels us to review its substantive ruling as a predicate to our review of the standing issue.
- Friedman v. Cave Creek Unified School District No. 93 299 P.3d 182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
-
Friedman v. Cave Creek Unified School District No. 93
299 P.3d 182
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
“ ‘The Constitution should be construed so as to ascertain and give effect to the intent and purpose of the framers and the people who adopted it.’ ” ¶ 15 , ( ¶ 26 , ).
- Rae Ann Rumery v. Maria baier/doug Ducey 294 P.3d 113 Ariz. 2013
-
Rae Ann Rumery v. Maria baier/doug Ducey
294 P.3d 113
Ariz. 2013
¶15 “The ‘Constitution should be construed so as to ascertain and give effect to the intent and purpose of the 8 framers and the people who adopted it.’” ¶ 26, (quoting State ex rel.
- Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission v. Brewer 275 P.3d 1267 Ariz. 2012
-
Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission v. Brewer
275 P.3d 1267
Ariz. 2012
833 P.2d at 22 (“In limited circumstances, a judicial proceeding by way of special action may be appropriate to test the constitutionality of executive conduct.”); see also Adams v. Comm'n on Appellate Court 9 Appointments, ¶ 9, ¶ 8
- Fogliano v. BRAIN EX REL. CTY. OF MARICOPA 270 P.3d 839 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
-
Fogliano v. BRAIN EX REL. CTY. OF MARICOPA
270 P.3d 839
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
See, ¶ 21 , (internal citation omitted) (questions involving “whether the Legislature should include particular items in a budget or enact particular legislation ...
- Adams v. COM'N ON APPELLATE CT. APPOINTMENTS 254 P.3d 367 Ariz. 2011
-
Adams v. COM'N ON APPELLATE CT. APPOINTMENTS
254 P.3d 367
Ariz. 2011
See Brewer v. Burns, 222 Ariz. 234, 237-38 ¶¶ 11-14, -75 (2009).
- Arizona City Sanitary Dist. v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
-
Arizona City Sanitary Dist. v. Pinal County
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
We are obliged to construe the constitution “„so as to ascertain and give effect to the intent and purpose of the framers and the people who adopted it.‟” quoting State ex rel.