Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Fain Land & Cattle Co. v. Hassell, 790 P.2d 242.

65 citing documents.

Smith v. Fontes/make Elections Fair Ariz. 2025
Smith v. Fontes/make Elections Fair Ariz. 2025
See Fain Land & (“The cardinal rule of constitutional construction is to follow the text and the intent of the framers, where it can be ascertained.”).
Arizona School Boards Assoc v. State Ariz. 2022
Arizona School Boards Assoc v. State Ariz. 2022
¶40 “Whether an opinion will be given prospective application only is a policy question within this court’s discretion.” Fain Land &
Brush & Nib v. City of Phoenix Ariz. 2019
Brush & Nib v. City of Phoenix Ariz. 2019
Fain Land & Boswell v. Phx.
Carranza v. Gonzales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Carranza v. Gonzales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See Law, 157 Ariz. at 160, 755 P.2d at 1148; Fain Land & Cattle Co, v. Hassell, Taylor v. Travelers Indem.
Summers v. Gloor 368 P.3d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Summers v. Gloor 368 P.3d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See Fain Land & , (rejecting argument that the state could accept payment in-kind for sale of trust property where the constitution unambiguously requires payment in cash).
Catalina Foothills Unified School District No. 16 v. La Paloma Property Owners Ass'n 363 P.3d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Catalina Foothills Unified School District No. 16 v. La Paloma Property Owners Ass'n 363 P.3d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
.For this reason, La Paloma's reliance on Fain Land & , and Lassen v. Arizona Highway Department, 385 U.S. 458 , 87 S.Ct.
Hess v. Purcell 274 P.3d 520 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Hess v. Purcell 274 P.3d 520 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
v. Maricopa County, ¶ 35 , (citing Fain Land & , ).
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
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
Turken v. Gordon 224 P.3d 158 Ariz. 2010
Turken v. Gordon 224 P.3d 158 Ariz. 2010
Co., “[w]hether an opinion will be given prospective application only is a policy question within this court’s discretion,” Fain Land &
James Colt Jones v. Cochise County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
James Colt Jones v. Cochise County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
(“We occasionally allow a decision to have only prospective application, but the matter ‘is a policy question within this court’s discretion.’”), quoting Fain Land & (emphasis added); Zavala v. Ariz. State Pers.
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
¶68 To support this argument, the plaintiffs rely on Fain Land &
Cain v. Horne 183 P.3d 1269 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Cain v. Horne 183 P.3d 1269 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
“The cardinal rule of constitutional construction is to follow the text and the intent of the framers.” Fain Land &amp
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
No. 219 (ch. 310), 36 Stat. 557 ; see also Fain Land &amp
American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees v. City of Phoenix 142 P.3d 234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees v. City of Phoenix 142 P.3d 234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
In interpreting the Arizona Constitution, we “follow the text and the intent of the framers.” Fain Land &amp
Arizona State Democratic Party v. State 98 P.3d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Arizona State Democratic Party v. State 98 P.3d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
¶ 8 In construing the Arizona Constitution we “follow the text and the intent of the framers.” Fain Land &amp
MacKey, Schuessler, Bayly v. Mayor and Council of the City of Tucson 96 P.3d 231 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
MacKey, Schuessler, Bayly v. Mayor and Council of the City of Tucson 96 P.3d 231 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Relying on Fain Land & P.2d 242 (1990), they contend that the specific dollar amount assigned to the difference in fair market values and the presence of the additional agreement rendered the transaction a sale rather than an exchange.
Galati v. America West Airlines, Inc. 69 P.3d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Galati v. America West Airlines, Inc. 69 P.3d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
See Fain Land & Cattle Co., v. Hassell, , Hernandez-Gomez v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., ¶ 3
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
¶ 5 The cardinal rule of constitutional construction directs us to “follow the text and the intent of the framers, where it can be ascertained.” Fain Land & , see also County of Apache v. Southwest Lumber Mills, Inc., , (governing principle of constitutional construction is to give effect to framers’ intent and purpose); S.A.
Taylor v. Travelers Indem. Co. of America 9 P.3d 1049 Ariz. 2000
Taylor v. Travelers Indem. Co. of America 9 P.3d 1049 Ariz. 2000
We occasionally allow a decision to have only prospective application, but the matter “is a policy question within this court’s discretion.” Fain Land &amp
Lowry v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 989 P.2d 152 Ariz. 1999
Lowry v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 989 P.2d 152 Ariz. 1999
Wiley, 174 Ariz. at 104 , 847 P.2d at 605 (quoting Fain Land & , ).
Kotterman v. Killian 972 P.2d 606 Ariz. 1999
Airport Properties v. Maricopa County 985 P.2d 574 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Airport Properties v. Maricopa County 985 P.2d 574 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Princess Plaza Partners v. State 928 P.2d 638 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Princess Plaza Partners v. State 928 P.2d 638 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Fain Land & , Deer Valley Unified Sch.
PCS, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 925 P.2d 680 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
PCS, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 925 P.2d 680 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Tucson Electric Power Co. v. Apache County 912 P.2d 9 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995