Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Wennerstrom v. City of Mesa, 821 P.2d 146.
- Roundtree v. Page Ariz. 2025
- Roundtree v. Page Ariz. 2025
- Roundtree v. Page Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
-
Roundtree v. Page
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
act in several capacities: legislative, executive, administrative, and quasi-judicial.”
- Voice v. Hall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
- Voice v. Hall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
- Workers v. Tempe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
-
Workers v. Tempe
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
And because this Development 10 WORKERS, et al. v. TEMPE, we need not decide any broader questions, see Hayes v. Cont'l Ins.
- Tourtillot v. Yuma County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
-
Tourtillot v. Yuma County
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
“The County exercises its ‘legislative function’ by creating, defining, or regulating rights,” Yakima Compost, 224 Ariz. at 603, ¶ 35 (citations omitted), or prescribing a new plan or policy, (quotation omitted).
- Louis Hoffman v. Michele Reagan 429 P.3d 70 Ariz. 2018
-
Louis Hoffman v. Michele Reagan
429 P.3d 70
Ariz. 2018
¶6 Respondents correctly note that the power of the people themselves to refer legislative actions to the ballot for approval or rejection extends only to legislative acts, rather than “bills under consideration,” and that “[t]o be considered legislation [a] measure must enact something.”
- American Furniture v. Gilbert 425 P.3d 1099 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
- American Furniture v. Gilbert 425 P.3d 1099 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
- Taxpayers v. Price 418 P.3d 1103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
-
Taxpayers v. Price
418 P.3d 1103
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
¶ 9 ; Wennerstrom v. City of Mesa , , 488, , 149 (1991) ("The sound rationale for limiting the referendum to legislative actions is that to permit referenda on executive and administrative actions would hamper the efficient administration of local governments.").
- Yuma Mesa v. Bushong Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
-
Yuma Mesa v. Bushong
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
our supreme court held that a city ordinance or resolution that establishes a policy is a legislative act subject to referendum, while a measure that implements that policy is an administrative act not subject to referendum.
- Respect the Promise in Opposition to R-14-02-Neighbors for a Better Glendale v. Hanna 360 P.3d 92 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
-
Respect the Promise in Opposition to R-14-02-Neighbors for a Better Glendale v. Hanna
360 P.3d 92
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
1, § 1, and thus “permits qualified electors to circulate petitions and refer to a popular vote legislation [that] has been enacted by their elected representatives.” (emphasis added).
- Cave Creek Unified School District v. Ducey 308 P.3d 1152 Ariz. 2013
-
Cave Creek Unified School District v. Ducey
308 P.3d 1152
Ariz. 2013
(describing the two types of referendum measures recognized in the Arizona Constitution, one of which “permits the legislature to refer a legislative enactment to a popular vote”).
- Stop Exploiting Taxpayers v. Jones 125 P.3d 396 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
- Stop Exploiting Taxpayers v. Jones 125 P.3d 396 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
- Redelsperger v. City of Avondale 87 P.3d 843 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
- Redelsperger v. City of Avondale 87 P.3d 843 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
- Moschcau v. Mohave County 48 P.3d 1212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
- Moschcau v. Mohave County 48 P.3d 1212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
- Israel v. Town of Cave Creek 993 P.2d 1114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
- Israel v. Town of Cave Creek 993 P.2d 1114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
- Grosvenor Holdings L.C. v. City of Peoria 985 P.2d 622 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
-
Grosvenor Holdings L.C. v. City of Peoria
985 P.2d 622
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
The City argues that the January 14 rezoning decision was the “initial step of the approval process” and the February 4 adoption of the ordinance was the “final step in the legislative process.” The trial court rejected this argument; , which held that an action becomes subject to a referendum when it is a final decision that circumscribes the freedom of the legislative body.
- Fritz v. City of Kingman 957 P.2d 337 Ariz. 1998
-
Followed
Fritz v. City of Kingman
957 P.2d 337
Ariz. 1998
neither alters that view nor implies that zoning ordinances reflecting a city’s general plan thereby become administrative decisions.
- Robertson v. Graziano 942 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
-
Robertson v. Graziano
942 P.2d 1182
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Therefore, because it will enact specific rules or regulations, it qualifies as “legislation.” -90 , -51 (1991) (setting policy, enacting a law or permanent rule, or declaring a public purpose and the means of attainment are “legislative” acts); Fuldauer v. City of Cleveland, 32 Ohio St.2d 114 , 290 N.E.2d 546, 549 (1972) (voters’ adoption of city charter amendment setting salaries of firef
- Galati v. Lake Havasu City 920 P.2d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
-
Galati v. Lake Havasu City
920 P.2d 11
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
(bond election for street improvements a legislative act; council’s approval of specific project was not).
- State v. Oakley 881 P.2d 366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
- State v. Oakley 881 P.2d 366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994