Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Hicks v. Krigbaum, 108 P. 482.

44 citing documents.

Stillman v. Marston 484 P.2d 628 Ariz. 1971
Stillman v. Marston 484 P.2d 628 Ariz. 1971
108 P. 482 (1910); , Prescott Courier, , 274 P. 163 (1929)
McKinley v. Reilly 393 P.2d 268 Ariz. 1964
McKinley v. Reilly 393 P.2d 268 Ariz. 1964
195 * , 202 P. 391 ; , 108 P. 482 .
Long v. Dick 347 P.2d 581 Ariz. 1959
Long v. Dick 347 P.2d 581 Ariz. 1959
Harless v. Lockwood 332 P.2d 887 Ariz. 1958
Harless v. Lockwood 332 P.2d 887 Ariz. 1958
we pointed out that “It is fundamental that statutes are not interpreted piecemeal.” , 108 P. 482 , 485: “ ‘In the construction of a statute, it is the intent and purpose of the law, not the letter, that must control, and the whole statute must be considered.’ 5{i * * » The Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma, in the case of Ex parte Houston, 93 Okl.Cr.
Isley v. School District No. 2 of Maricopa County 305 P.2d 432 Ariz. 1956
Isley v. School District No. 2 of Maricopa County 305 P.2d 432 Ariz. 1956
285 P. 1034 ; , 108 P. 482 .
Lockwood v. Board of Supervisors of Maricopa County 297 P.2d 356 Ariz. 1956
Adams v. Bolin 271 P.2d 472 Ariz. 1954
Adams v. Bolin 271 P.2d 472 Ariz. 1954
108 P. 482 , 485: “ ‘In the construction of a statute, it is the intent and purpose of the law, not the letter, that must control, and the whole statute must be considered.’ , 32 P. 261 .” Let us consider the underlying philosophy and purpose of requiring nomination papers (commonly call
Morgan v. Board of Sup'rs 192 P.2d 236 Ariz. 1948
Morgan v. Board of Sup'rs 192 P.2d 236 Ariz. 1948
108 P. 482, 485 , we construed the phrase “taxpayers of the district” as follows: “ * * * We are of the opinion, * * * that both the legislative intent and a reasonable construction require us to read the phrase to mean those who pay taxes upon property within the school district(Emphasis supplied.)
Southern Pacific Co. v. Gila County 109 P.2d 610 Ariz. 1941
Southern Pacific Co. v. Gila County 109 P.2d 610 Ariz. 1941
Garrison v. Luke 78 P.2d 1120 Ariz. 1938
Garrison v. Luke 78 P.2d 1120 Ariz. 1938
State v. Borah 76 P.2d 757 Ariz. 1938
State v. Borah 76 P.2d 757 Ariz. 1938
Mahoney v. County of Maricopa 68 P.2d 694 Ariz. 1937
Mahoney v. County of Maricopa 68 P.2d 694 Ariz. 1937
Allison v. City of Phoenix 33 P.2d 927 Ariz. 1934
Allison v. City of Phoenix 33 P.2d 927 Ariz. 1934
Warren County v. Marcy, 97 U. S. 96 , 24 L. Ed. 977 ; , 108 Pac.
Industrial Commission v. Arizona State Highway Commission 10 P.2d 1046 Ariz. 1932
Industrial Commission v. Arizona State Highway Commission 10 P.2d 1046 Ariz. 1932
Town of Florence v. Webb 9 P.2d 413 Ariz. 1932
McLoughlin v. City of Prescott 6 P.2d 50 Ariz. 1931
McLoughlin v. City of Prescott 6 P.2d 50 Ariz. 1931
McDonald v. Cochise County 292 P. 603 Ariz. 1930
McDonald v. Cochise County 292 P. 603 Ariz. 1930
The sole purpose of this being to warn the electors that an election is to be held, it is generally held that a substantial compliance with the statute is all that is required.” , 108 Pac.
Automatic Registering MacHine Co. v. Pima County 285 P. 1034 Ariz. 1930
Automatic Registering MacHine Co. v. Pima County 285 P. 1034 Ariz. 1930
Maricopa County v. Pima County 267 P. 601 Ariz. 1928
Maricopa County v. Pima County 267 P. 601 Ariz. 1928
In Re Hubbs 252 P. 515 Ariz. 1926
Higgins Estate v. Hubbs 252 P. 515 Ariz. 1926
Higgins Estate v. Hubbs 252 P. 515 Ariz. 1926
In Re Hubbs 252 P. 515 Ariz. 1926
Hicks v. Krigbaum , , 108 P. 482 ; Deyo v. Arizona G. C. Co. , , L.R.A.
Parks v. School District No. 1 193 P. 838 Ariz. 1920
Parks v. School District No. 1 193 P. 838 Ariz. 1920
In Hicks *30 v. Krigbaum, , 108 Pac.
Howard v. Luke 164 P. 439 Ariz. 1917
Howard v. Luke 164 P. 439 Ariz. 1917