Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Jett v. City of Tucson, 882 P.2d 426.

128 citing documents.

Parker, Springer Jr., Anderson v. Committee for Sustainable Retirement in Support of Initiative 314 P.3d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Thus, our goal is “to effectuate the intent of those who framed the provision.”
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
B. ¶21 We interpret a constitutional amendment such as the VPA to effect “the intent of the electorate that adopted it.”
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
[o]ur primary purpose is to effectuate the intent of those who framed the provision____”
Tumacacori Mission Land Development, Ltd. v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Tumacacori Mission Land Development, Ltd. v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Winterbottom v. Ronan 258 P.3d 182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Winterbottom v. Ronan 258 P.3d 182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
(holding that plain meaning of unambiguous constitutional provision should be followed as written).
City of Tucson v. State 250 P.3d 251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
City of Tucson v. State 250 P.3d 251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Strode, 72 Ariz. at 362-69 , 236 P.2d at 50-54 .
State of Arizona v. John David Franklin, Sr. & John David Franklin, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. John David Franklin, Sr. & John David Franklin, Jr. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
To determine the meaning of a constitutional provision, we must determine “„the intent of the electorate that adopted it.‟”
State of Arizona v. Robert Arthur Ergonis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Robert Arthur Ergonis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Prince & Princess Enterprises, LLC v. State Ex Rel. Arizona Department of Health Services 209 P.3d 141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Prince & Princess Enterprises, LLC v. State Ex Rel. Arizona Department of Health Services 209 P.3d 141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
“Our primary purpose is to effectuate the intent of those who framed the provision and, in the case of an [initiative], the intent of the electorate that adopted it.”
Cain v. Horne 202 P.3d 1178 Ariz. 2009
Cain v. Horne 202 P.3d 1178 Ariz. 2009
II A ¶10 In interpreting a constitutional provision, “[o]ur primary purpose is to effectuate the intent of those who framed the provision.”
Heath v. Kiger 176 P.3d 690 Ariz. 2008
Heath v. Kiger 176 P.3d 690 Ariz. 2008
Steven H. Simon v. Safeway, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Steven H. Simon v. Safeway, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
-24, -35 (1994) (appellate court does not address issue trial court failed to resolve).
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
Arizona Minority Coalition for Fair Redistricting v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission 121 P.3d 843 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Arizona Minority Coalition for Fair Redistricting v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission 121 P.3d 843 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
In interpreting Article 4, Part 2, Section 1(14), our primary focus is on the intent of the electorate that voted to amend the constitution, , “and we do not [step] outside the plain language of the provision unless the language is unclear.” Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Arizona Elec.
Phelps v. Firebird Raceway, Inc. 111 P.3d 1003 Ariz. 2005
Renee Antonio Fragoso v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Renee Antonio Fragoso v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
“To this end, we first examine the plain language of the provision.”
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
Our first step is to “examine the plain language of the provision.”
Simpson v. Owens 85 P.3d 478 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Simpson v. Owens 85 P.3d 478 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
¶ 12 A court must “effectuate the intent of those who framed the provision and, in the case of [a referendum], the intent of the electorate that adopted it.” , 498 ¶ 10, ( , ).
State v. Givens 76 P.3d 457 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Raney v. Lindberg 76 P.3d 867 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Givens 76 P.3d 457 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
¶ 5 Our goal in interpreting statutes is to give effect “ ‘to the intent of those who framed the provision and, in the case of an [initiative], the intent of the electorate that adopted it.’”
Raney v. Lindberg 76 P.3d 867 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
“Our primary purpose is to effectuate the intent of those who framed the provision and, in the case of an [initiative], the intent of the electorate that adopted it.” Calik, 195 Ariz. at 498, ¶ 10 , 990 P.2d at 1057 ( , ).
Jachimek v. State 74 P.3d 944 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Jachimek v. State 74 P.3d 944 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
leaving no room for the City’s charter provision to supplement its authority to act in the area.” , ( , ).
Arizona Water Co. v. Arizona Department of Water Resources 73 P.3d 1267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Arizona Water Co. v. Arizona Department of Water Resources 73 P.3d 1267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Maricopa County v. Kinko's Inc. 56 P.3d 70 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Maricopa County v. Kinko's Inc. 56 P.3d 70 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
at 407-408, ¶ 16 , 18 P.3d at 718 -19 ( , ).
Matt W Russ v. Jim irvin/betsey Bayless Ariz. 2002
Matt W Russ v. Jim irvin/betsey Bayless Ariz. 2002
judicial construction is neither necessary nor proper.” (citation omitted).
Bunker's Glass Co. v. Pilkington PlC 47 P.3d 1119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Bunker's Glass Co. v. Pilkington PlC 47 P.3d 1119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
-24 , -35 (1994) (appellate court will not address issue not resolved by the trial court).
State v. Estrada 34 P.3d 356 Ariz. 2001
State v. Estrada 34 P.3d 356 Ariz. 2001
Our primary objective in construing a ballot initiative is to place a reasonable interpretation on “the intent of the electorate that adopted it.” , , 273 ¶ 3 (2000) ( , ) (internal quotations omitted).