Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Kadish v. Arizona State Land Department, 747 P.2d 1183.

51 citing documents.

Wildearth Guardians, Inc. v. Hickman 308 P.3d 1201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Wildearth Guardians, Inc. v. Hickman 308 P.3d 1201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
No. 219, ch. 310, 36 Stat. 557 (1910); see also Radish v. Ariz. State Land Dep’t., -87 , -86 (1987).
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
¶3 By ratifying our state constitution, Arizona’s voters accepted the land grants and incorporated the Enabling Act into “the organic law of this state.” Kadish v. Ariz. State Land Dep’t, aff’d sub.
In re General Adjudication of all Rights to use Water in the Gila River System & Source 289 P.3d 936 Ariz. 2012
In re General Adjudication of all Rights to use Water in the Gila River System & Source 289 P.3d 936 Ariz. 2012
Federal property grants generally should be interpreted narrowly because “nothing passes by mere implication.” Knoxville Water Co. v. Knoxville, 200 U.S. 22, 33-34 (1906); cf. Kadish v. Ariz. State Land Dep’t, 155 Ariz. 484, 495, (recognizing principle of construing “federal land grants in favor of the [granting] government”), aff’d sub nom.
In re General Adjudication of all Rights to use Water in the Gila River System & Source 289 P.3d 936 Ariz. 2012
484, 495, (recognizing principle of construing “federal land grants in favor of the [granting] government”), aff'd sub nom.
Rumery v. Baier 268 P.3d 1120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Rumery v. Baier 268 P.3d 1120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
“[T]he Arizona electorate accepted the land grants by ratifying” Article 10, Section 1, of the Arizona Constitution in 1911, and the “full provisions of the Enabling Act became part of the organic law of this state.” Radish v. Ariz. State Land Dep’t, , affd sub nom.
Baier v. Mayer Unified School District 232 P.3d 747 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Baier v. Mayer Unified School District 232 P.3d 747 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶ 3 In 1910, through its passage of the Enabling Act, Congress authorized “the people of the territories of Aizona and New Mexico to form state governments.” Kadish v. Ariz. State Land Dep’t (Asarco I), , aff'd ASARCO Inc. v. Kadish (Asarco II), 490 U.S. 605, 625 , 109 S.Ct.
Koepnick v. Arizona State Land Department 212 P.3d 62 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Koepnick v. Arizona State Land Department 212 P.3d 62 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
The Enabling Act authorized “the people of the territories of Arizona and New Mexico to form state governments.” Kadish v. Ariz. State Land Dep’t
Mayer Unified School District v. Winkleman 201 P.3d 523 Ariz. 2009
Mayer Unified School District v. Winkleman 201 P.3d 523 Ariz. 2009
For a more detailed exploration of the history of the Enabling Act and its provisions, -88 , -87 (1987), aff'd subnom.
Mayer Unified School and Gadsen Elementary School v. Winkleman, Az State Land Dept... Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Mayer Unified School and Gadsen Elementary School v. Winkleman, Az State Land Dept... Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Kadish v. Ariz. State Land Dep’t, -87, -86 (1987) (hereinafter “Asarco I”).
Northeast Phoenix Holdings, LLC v. Winkleman 193 P.3d 776 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Northeast Phoenix Holdings, LLC v. Winkleman 193 P.3d 776 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
See Kadish v. Ariz. State Land Dep’t
Peeples, Inc. v. Arizona State Land Department Ex Rel. Anable 59 P.3d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Peeples, Inc. v. Arizona State Land Department Ex Rel. Anable 59 P.3d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
aff'd by ASARCO Inc. v. Kadish, 490 U.S. 605 , 109 S.Ct.
Guardians v. Wells 34 P.3d 364 Ariz. 2001
Guardians v. Wells 34 P.3d 364 Ariz. 2001
Kadish v. Arizona State Land Dep’t, , aff'd sub nom.
Foster v. Anable 19 P.3d 630 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Foster v. Anable 19 P.3d 630 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Further, “[cjourt opinions concerning the trust land provisions in Arizona strictly interpret the Enabling Act in order to protect the beneficiaries of the trust.” Radish v. Arizona State Land Dep’t
Korte v. Bayless 16 P.3d 200 Ariz. 2001
Korte v. Bayless 16 P.3d 200 Ariz. 2001
3 See Kadish v. Arizona State Land Dep’t
Forest Guardians v. Wells 4 P.3d 1054 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Forest Guardians v. Wells 4 P.3d 1054 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
See Kadish v. Arizona State Land Dep’t, , aff'd, ASARCO, Inc. v. Kadish, 490 U.S. 605 , 109 S.Ct.
Jeffries v. Hassell 3 P.3d 1071 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Jeffries v. Hassell 3 P.3d 1071 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
“The land could be used only for the support of the common schools of the state (school trust lands) and for internal improvements to the state.” Kadish v. Arizona State Land Dep’t, , aff'd.
Campana v. Arizona State Land Department 860 P.2d 1341 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Campana v. Arizona State Land Department 860 P.2d 1341 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Waddell v. Arizona State Land Department 873 P.2d 646 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Waddell v. Arizona State Land Department 873 P.2d 646 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
See Kadish v. State Land Dep’t, , ajfd, ASARCO, Inc. v. Kadish, 490 U.S. 605 , 109 S.Ct.
Kadish v. Arizona State Land Department 868 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Kadish v. Arizona State Land Department 868 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
aff'd, ASARCO v. Kadish, 490 U.S. 605 , 109 S.Ct.
Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest v. Hassell 837 P.2d 158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest v. Hassell 837 P.2d 158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Our supreme court said in reviewing a disposition of mineral deposits on school trust lands, “The duties imposed *367 upon the state [are] the duties of a trustee and not simply the duties of a good business manager.” , aff'd, 490 U.S. 605 , 109 S.Ct.
Fain Land & Cattle Co. v. Hassell 790 P.2d 242 Ariz. 1990
Fain Land & Cattle Co. v. Hassell 790 P.2d 242 Ariz. 1990
aff'd, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct.
State v. Lammie 793 P.2d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Lammie 793 P.2d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Radish v. Arizona State Land Dep’t
Arnold v. Arizona Department of Health Services 775 P.2d 521 Ariz. 1989
Arnold v. Arizona Department of Health Services 775 P.2d 521 Ariz. 1989
Radish v. Arizona State Land Dep’t, , petition for cert.
DEER VAL. UNIFIED SCH. D. v. Superior Ct. 760 P.2d 537 Ariz. 1988
Deer Valley Unified School District No. 97 v. Superior Court 760 P.2d 537 Ariz. 1988
DEER VAL. UNIFIED SCH. D. v. Superior Ct. 760 P.2d 537 Ariz. 1988
Deer Valley Unified School District No. 97 v. Superior Court 760 P.2d 537 Ariz. 1988
Sleeseman v. State Board of Education 753 P.2d 186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988