Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State Compensation Fund v. Symington, 848 P.2d 273.

63 citing documents.

Karen Fann v. State of Arizona 493 P.3d 246 Ariz. 2021
Karen Fann v. State of Arizona 493 P.3d 246 Ariz. 2021
(“[T]he problem is twofold: the legislature must have intended that the act be separable, and the act must be capable of separation in fact.” (quoting 2 Sutherland, Statutory Construction § 44.03 (4th ed. 1986))); (“Generally, we have said that if the vali
State of Arizona v. Vivek a Patel 486 P.3d 188 Ariz. 2021
State of Arizona v. Vivek a Patel 486 P.3d 188 Ariz. 2021
State Ex Rel Brnovich v. City of Phoenix Ariz. 2020
State Ex Rel Brnovich v. City of Phoenix Ariz. 2020
(explaining severability doctrine).
Vangilder v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Vangilder v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State Ex Rel Brnovich v. City of tucson/dewit 399 P.3d 663 Ariz. 2017
State Ex Rel Brnovich v. City of tucson/dewit 399 P.3d 663 Ariz. 2017
-96 , -81 (1993) (setting forth requirements for finding severability).
Arner v. Ryan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Arner v. Ryan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Steve Gallardo v. State of Arizona 336 P.3d 717 Ariz. 2014
Steve Gallardo v. State of Arizona 336 P.3d 717 Ariz. 2014
Republic Inv., 166 Ariz. at 149, 800 P.2d at 1257; Ariz. Downs v. Ariz. Horsemen’s Found., –58, –61 (1981).
Gallardo v. State of Arizona 335 P.3d 523 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Gallardo v. State of Arizona 335 P.3d 523 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
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
(observing that budget issues are entitled to “prompt resolution” so that the legislative and executive branches “will know where they stand” and be able to act accordingly.).
Pivotal Colorado II, LLC v. Arizona Public Safety Personnel Retirement System 322 P.3d 186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Pivotal Colorado II, LLC v. Arizona Public Safety Personnel Retirement System 322 P.3d 186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
and using “not subject to” and “exempt” interchangeably when explaining that the State Fund is exempt from some statutes otherwise applicable to state agencies).
Bonito Partners, LLC v. City of Flagstaff 270 P.3d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Bonito Partners, LLC v. City of Flagstaff 270 P.3d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
League of Ariz. Cities and Towns v. Martin 201 P.3d 517 Ariz. 2009
League of Ariz. Cities and Towns v. Martin 201 P.3d 517 Ariz. 2009
(noting that “prompt resolution is needed [in cases affecting the state budget] so that the legislative and executive branches will know where they stand and can take such action as they determine necessary relative to budgetary matters”).
Town of Gilbert v. Maricopa County 141 P.3d 416 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Town of Gilbert v. Maricopa County 141 P.3d 416 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
(quoting Ariz. Downs v. Ariz. Horsemen’s Found., , ).
Avila v. Biedess 78 P.3d 280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Avila v. Biedess 78 P.3d 280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
McLoughlin Catalina v. Pima County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
McLoughlin Catalina v. Pima County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Long v. Napolitano 53 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Long v. Napolitano 53 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Kurti v. Maricopa County 33 P.3d 499 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Kurti v. Maricopa County 33 P.3d 499 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Jackson v. Tangreen 18 P.3d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Jackson v. Tangreen 18 P.3d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Aida Renta Trust v. Department of Revenue 3 P.3d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Aida Renta Trust v. Department of Revenue 3 P.3d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Salt River Project, 113 Ariz. at 473-74 , 556 P.2d at 1135-36 ; State Tax Comm’n v. Superior Ct. (Maricopa County), , Tucson Elec.
Randolph v. Groscost 989 P.2d 751 Ariz. 1999
Randolph v. Groscost 989 P.2d 751 Ariz. 1999
State v. Bonnewell 2 P.3d 682 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Bonnewell 2 P.3d 682 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
In Re Cesar R. 4 P.3d 980 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
In Re Cesar R. 4 P.3d 980 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State Ex Rel. Napolitano v. Brown 982 P.2d 815 Ariz. 1999
State Ex Rel. Napolitano v. Brown 982 P.2d 815 Ariz. 1999
[and] if the valid and invalid portions are not so intimately connected as to raise the presumption the legislature would not have enacted one without the other, and the invalid portion was not the inducement of the act.” , (citations omitted).
Hull v. Albrecht 960 P.2d 634 Ariz. 1998
Hull v. Albrecht 960 P.2d 634 Ariz. 1998
Ariz. Const, art. VI, § 5(1)
Ruiz v. Hull 957 P.2d 984 Ariz. 1998
Ruiz v. Hull 957 P.2d 984 Ariz. 1998