Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Roosevelt Elementary School District Number 66 v. Bishop, 877 P.2d 806.

38 citing documents.

CENTER FOR AZ v. AZ SECRETARY OF STATE Ariz. 2026
No. 66 v. Bishop, )); Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 184 (2012) (“[T]he general/specific canon does not mean that the existence of a contradictory specific provision voids the general provision.
Knight v. Fontes Ariz. 2025
Knight v. Fontes Ariz. 2025
No. 66 v. Bishop, (citing Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 273 (1994)); Clouse ex rel.
Gann v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Gann v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
No. 66 v. Bishop, (interpreting the State’s responsibility to fund public education under Arizona’s Enabling Act and Constitution).
Craven v. Huppenthal 338 P.3d 324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Craven v. Huppenthal 338 P.3d 324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
No. 66 v. Bishop, P.2d 806 (1994) (“Roosevelt I”), with which only two justices agreed.2 The Roosevelt I footnote suggests that adequacy of education does not defeat a claim under the general and uniform clause.
Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc. v. American Ass'n of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists 257 P.3d 181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc. v. American Ass'n of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists 257 P.3d 181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
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
Thus, the circumstances here are more similar to *317 those in Roosevelt Elementary School District No. 66 v. Bishop, , in which the supreme court concluded that a statutory funding scheme for public education violated the “general and uniform” requirement in Article 11, Section I. Although the state did not assert in Roosevelt that the constitutional claim was a nonjusticiable political question, the court’s dec
Kromko v. Arizona Board of Regents 165 P.3d 168 Ariz. 2007
Kromko v. Arizona Board of Regents 165 P.3d 168 Ariz. 2007
In Roosevelt Elementary School District No. 66 v. Bishop, P.2d 806 (1994), for example, we concluded that a statutory funding scheme for public 14 education violated the “general and uniform” requirement in Article XI, Section 1.
Kromko v. Arizona Board of Regents 146 P.3d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Kromko v. Arizona Board of Regents 146 P.3d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
No. 66 v. Bishop,” , and further argued that neither the Board nor the Legislature were immune from the lawsuit.
TANQUE VERDE UNIFIED SCHOOL v. Bernini 76 P.3d 874 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
TANQUE VERDE UNIFIED SCHOOL v. Bernini 76 P.3d 874 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
¶ 37 The SFB was created as part of the Students FIRST Act, the legislature's response to our supreme court's ruling in Roosevelt Elementary School District No. 66 v. Bishop, , that the state's system for financing schools was unconstitutional.
Roosevelt Elementary School District No. 66 v. State 74 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Roosevelt Elementary School District No. 66 v. State 74 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
BACKGROUND ¶2 In Roosevelt Elementary School District No. 66 v. Bishop, -43 , -16 (1994), the Arizona Supreme Court concluded that the State bears responsibility for funding public schools and that the Arizona Constitution was violated by a property-tax-based public-school-finaneing statutory scheme.
Parker v. Arizona Interscholastic Ass'n 59 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Parker v. Arizona Interscholastic Ass'n 59 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
The supreme court noted this inconsistency in Roosevelt Elementary School District Number 66 v. Bishop
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community School v. State 23 P.3d 103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community School v. State 23 P.3d 103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
The state, however, contends that the Arizona Supreme Court left this question open in Roosevelt Elementary School District No. 66 v. Bishop
Home Builders Ass'n v. City of Apache Junction 11 P.3d 1032 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Home Builders Ass'n v. City of Apache Junction 11 P.3d 1032 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Pavlik v. Chinle Unified School District No. 24 985 P.2d 633 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Kotterman v. Killian 972 P.2d 606 Ariz. 1999
Kotterman v. Killian 972 P.2d 606 Ariz. 1999
Hull v. Albrecht 960 P.2d 634 Ariz. 1998
Hull v. Albrecht 960 P.2d 634 Ariz. 1998
In Roosevelt Elementary School District No. 66 v. Bishop, , we held that the existing school financing system did not comply with the general and uniform requirement because its heavy reliance on local property taxation, combined with arbitrary school district boundaries and lack of meaningful equalization, directly caused substantial capital disparities
Hull v. Albrecht 950 P.2d 1141 Ariz. 1997
Hull v. Albrecht 950 P.2d 1141 Ariz. 1997
izona against the Roosevelt Elementary School District, other districts, the Superintendent of Public Instruction, and the State Board of Education, seeking judicial review of the superior court’s order denying the Governor’s motion for a declaration that recent amendments to Arizona’s school finance legislation complied with this court’s
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Strohson 945 P.2d 1251 Ariz. 1997
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Strohson 945 P.2d 1251 Ariz. 1997
Russo v. Catalina Foothills Unified School District No. 16 914 P.2d 1345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
Russo v. Catalina Foothills Unified School District No. 16 914 P.2d 1345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
oxxr supreme coxxrt held the existing statutory school financing stnictxire unconstitutional because it caused gross disparities in school facilities.
Tucson Electric Power Co. v. Apache County 912 P.2d 9 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Tucson Electric Power Co. v. Apache County 912 P.2d 9 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY For a basic understanding of Arizona’s existing school financing system, we turn to our supreme court’s recent opinion in Roosevelt Elementary School District # 66 v. Bishop, , : The statutes create an educational funding formula.