Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Mecham v. Gordon, 751 P.2d 957.

35 citing documents.

In the Matter of April Arlene Sponsel Ariz. 2025
In the Matter of April Arlene Sponsel Ariz. 2025
Puente v. Asl Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Puente v. Asl Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶6 “Nowhere in the United States is [the separation of powers] more explicitly and firmly expressed than in Arizona.”
Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission v. Brewer 275 P.3d 1267 Ariz. 2012
Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission v. Brewer 275 P.3d 1267 Ariz. 2012
Section 1(10)’s removal provision, Respondents argue, is akin to the legislature’s constitutional impeachment power and, therefore, P.2d 957 (1988) (Mecham I), P.2d 1160 (1989) (Mecham II) (collectively “Mecham Cases”).
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
A. Underlying Principles and Test for Separation of Powers ¶ 18 While separation of powers is "explicitly and firmly expressed" under *1058 Arizona law, ¶ 16 , ( , ), separation of powers is not absolute, but rather allows for common boundaries among the three branches of government.
Chavez v. Brewer 214 P.3d 397 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Chavez v. Brewer 214 P.3d 397 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
“Nowhere in the United States is [separation of powers] more explicitly and firmly expressed than in Arizona.” , , *316 960 (1988).
Arizona Minority Coalition for Fair Redistricting v. Redistricting Com'n Arizona Independent 208 P.3d 676 Ariz. 2009
Arizona Minority Coalition for Fair Redistricting v. Redistricting Com'n Arizona Independent 208 P.3d 676 Ariz. 2009
We will not tell the legislature when to meet, what its agenda should be, what it should submit to the people, what bills it may draft or what language it may use.”
Clark v. Campbell 193 P.3d 320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Clark v. Campbell 193 P.3d 320 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
7 Thus, the “concept [of due process] does not protect the right to hold [elected] office.”
Kromko v. Arizona Board of Regents 165 P.3d 168 Ariz. 2007
Kromko v. Arizona Board of Regents 165 P.3d 168 Ariz. 2007
Our state Constitution expressly provides that the departments of our 7 state government “shall be separate and distinct, and no one of such departments shall exercise the powers properly belonging to either of the others.” Ariz. Const. art. III; see also Mecham v. Gordon, 156 Ariz. 297, 300, (“Nowhere in the United States is [separation of powers] more explicitly and firmly expressed than in Arizona.”).
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Rayes 141 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Rayes 141 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
ot be permitted to unconstitutionally encroach upon the functions properly belonging to another branch, for only in this manner can we preserve the system of checks and balances which is the genius of our government.”); , (“The concept of separation of powers is fundamental to constitutional government as we know it.”); , (“Nowhere in the United States is this system of structured liberty [i.e., separation of powers] more explicitly and firmly expressed than in Arizona.”); , (“The ultimate aim o
State v. Donald 10 P.3d 1193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Martin v. Reinstein 987 P.2d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Martin v. Reinstein 987 P.2d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
*322 ¶ 105 Although Arizona’s Constitution contains a strong prohibition upon the usurpation of the powers of one branch of government by another branch, see Ariz. Const, art. 3; 25 , the Arizona Supreme Court has recognized that there is some permissible — and sometimes necessary and practical — blending of authority among the branches of government.
Valencia Energy Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 959 P.2d 1256 Ariz. 1998
Valencia Energy Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 959 P.2d 1256 Ariz. 1998
¶26 “Nowhere in the United States is this system of structured liberty [separation of powers] more explicitly and firmly expressed than in Arizona.”
State Ex Rel. Woods v. Block 942 P.2d 428 Ariz. 1997
State Ex Rel. Woods v. Block 942 P.2d 428 Ariz. 1997
As this court has previously had occasion to observe: “Nowhere in the United States is this system of structured liberty [of separation of powers] more explicitly and firmly expressed than in Arizona.”
Airness & Accountability in Insurance Reform v. Greene 886 P.2d 1338 Ariz. 1994
FAIRNESS & ACCT. IN INS. REFORM v. Greene 886 P.2d 1338 Ariz. 1994
Airness & Accountability in Insurance Reform v. Greene 886 P.2d 1338 Ariz. 1994
See, , (“The separation of powers required by our constitution prohibits us from intervening in the legislative process.”); see also Queen Creek Land &amp
FAIRNESS & ACCT. IN INS. REFORM v. Greene 886 P.2d 1338 Ariz. 1994
See, , ("The separation of powers required by our constitution prohibits us from intervening in the legislative process."); see also Queen Creek Land &amp
Ingram v. Shumway 794 P.2d 147 Ariz. 1990
Ingram v. Shumway 794 P.2d 147 Ariz. 1990
(citing Ariz. Const, art. 3).
State v. Prentiss 786 P.2d 932 Ariz. 1989
State v. Prentiss 786 P.2d 932 Ariz. 1989
Mecham v. Arizona House of Representatives 782 P.2d 1160 Ariz. 1989
Mecham v. Arizona House of Representatives 782 P.2d 1160 Ariz. 1989