Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Cave Creek Unified School District v. Ducey, 308 P.3d 1152.

73 citing documents.

State v. Hunter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
v. Ducey, n.2 ¶ 7 (2013) (holding that amici curiae are not permitted to create, extend, or enlarge issues beyond those raised by the parties).
State v. Maestas 394 P.3d 21 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Maestas 394 P.3d 21 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
cheatham/huey v. Plea Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Cheatham v. Diciccio 356 P.3d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Cheatham v. Diciccio 356 P.3d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
cheatham/huey v. Plea Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Biggs v. Cooper 341 P.3d 457 Ariz. 2014
biggs/tobin v. Hon. cooper/brewer/betlach Ariz. 2014
Biggs v. Cooper 341 P.3d 457 Ariz. 2014
v. Ducey, , 5 ¶ 13, , ).
biggs/tobin v. Hon. cooper/brewer/betlach Ariz. 2014
Dobson v. McClennen 337 P.3d 568 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Dobson v. McClennen 337 P.3d 568 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
v. Ducey, , 6-7 ¶ 21, -58 (2013) (interpreting each word in voter-approved measure according to its “natural, obvious and ordinary meaning”) (internal quotation omitted).
Steve Gallardo v. State of Arizona 336 P.3d 717 Ariz. 2014
Steve Gallardo v. State of Arizona 336 P.3d 717 Ariz. 2014
v. Ducey, ¶ 11, (observing that “[w]hen the statute in question involves no fundamental constitutional rights or distinctions based on suspect classifications, we presume the 4 GALLARDO V. STATE OF ARIZONA Opinio
Darrah v. Hon. mcclennen/mesa 337 P.3d 550 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Darrah v. Hon. mcclennen/mesa 337 P.3d 550 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
v. Ducey, -7, ¶ 21 , -58 (2013) (explaining that we interpret a voter-approved measure “to effect the intent of the electorate that adopted it,” and, in doing so, we interpret the words used according to their “natural, obvious and ordinary meaning”) (internal quotation omitted).
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
(explaining that “state constitutions are not grants of power, but instead are limitations thereof”); ¶ 13, (observing “[o]ur state constitution, unlike the federal constitution, does not grant power, but instead limits the exercise and scope of legislative authority”).
Clean Elections v. Hon. brain/bennett Ariz. 2014
Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission v. Brain 322 P.3d 139 Ariz. 2014
Clean Elections v. Hon. brain/bennett Ariz. 2014
v. Ducey, ¶ 9, Ariz. Const. art. 4, pt.
Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission v. Brain 322 P.3d 139 Ariz. 2014
v. Ducey, ¶ 9, Ariz. Const. art. 4, pt.