Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State ex rel. Davis v. Osborne, 125 P. 884.

64 citing documents.

CENTER FOR AZ v. AZ SECRETARY OF STATE Ariz. 2026
¶ 21 (2020); (stating that each provision in the Constitution should be construed as part of the whole and harmonized to prevent conflict); (stating that the Speak Freely Clause does not have primacy over other constitutional provisions)
PETERSEN v. FONTES Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
PETERSEN v. FONTES Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Unlike the legislators, the Secretary cites longstanding and recent Arizona precedent to support its position: (saying canvassing is a ministerial act); ¶ 18 (App. 2024) (Crosby II) (saying the mathematical undertaking in canvassing “does not require the Board to make multiple discretionary decisions or balance goals.”).
Robin Roebuck v. Mayo Clinic Ariz. 2025
Robin Roebuck v. Mayo Clinic Ariz. 2025
art. 2, § 32 (“The provisions of this Constitution are mandatory, unless by express words they are declared to be otherwise.”); (“‘Mandatory’ is defined as a command, hence obligatory.
Robert Burns v. Arizona Public Service Co Ariz. 2022
Robert Burns v. Arizona Public Service Co Ariz. 2022
(observing that “each and every clause in a written [c]onstitution has been inserted for some useful purpose” and “whenever it is possible to do so, each provision must be construed so that it shall harmonize with all others without distorting the meaning of any of such provisions”).
State of Arizona v. William Mixton Ariz. 2021
State of Arizona v. William Mixton Ariz. 2021
See, (stating that the rule of constitutional construction that each clause should be given meaning exists “so that intent of the framers may be ascertained and carried out”).
Adams v. COM'N ON APPELLATE CT. APPOINTMENTS 254 P.3d 367 Ariz. 2011
Adams v. COM'N ON APPELLATE CT. APPOINTMENTS 254 P.3d 367 Ariz. 2011
-47, -30 (1962); see also U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, 783 16 (1995); 125 P. 884, 893-94 (1912) (recognizing power of Congress to fix time for election of representatives contrary to state constitution); Op.
Citizens Clean Elections Commission v. Myers 1 P.3d 706 Ariz. 2000
Citizens Clean Elections Commission v. Myers 1 P.3d 706 Ariz. 2000
125 P. 884, 893 (1912) (holding that an act may be repugnant to the constitution even where *521 there is “no express prohibition.”) A limitation may be implied by the text of the constitution or its structure taken as a whole.
Barlow v. Blackburn 798 P.2d 1360 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Barlow v. Blackburn 798 P.2d 1360 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
When constitutional provisions appear to conflict, however, this court must construe each provision to harmonize it with others “so that the intent of the framers may be ascertained and carried out and effect given to the instrument as a whole.” , 125 P. 884, 892 (1912).
Green v. Osborne 758 P.2d 138 Ariz. 1988
Green v. Osborne 758 P.2d 138 Ariz. 1988
Laos v. Arnold 685 P.2d 111 Ariz. 1984
Laos v. Arnold 685 P.2d 111 Ariz. 1984
Folk v. City of Phoenix 551 P.2d 595 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Folk v. City of Phoenix 551 P.2d 595 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Kilpatrick v. Superior Court 466 P.2d 18 Ariz. 1970
Kilpatrick v. Superior Court 466 P.2d 18 Ariz. 1970
City of Mesa v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District 373 P.2d 722 Ariz. 1962
City of Mesa v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District 373 P.2d 722 Ariz. 1962
Brown v. Superior Court 303 P.2d 990 Ariz. 1956
Brown v. Superior Court 303 P.2d 990 Ariz. 1956
State Ex Rel. Morrison v. Nabours 286 P.2d 752 Ariz. 1955
State Ex Rel. Morrison v. Nabours 286 P.2d 752 Ariz. 1955
125 P. 884, 892 , it was pointed out that the word “mandatory” as used in this constitutional provision is defined as a command and hence obligatory, with which we must implicitly follow and obey.
Adams v. Bolin 247 P.2d 617 Ariz. 1952
Adams v. Bolin 247 P.2d 617 Ariz. 1952
125 P. 884 ; , 146 P. 494 ; Ann.Cas.1916D, 94; , .
Arizona Corp. Commission v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co. 228 P.2d 749 Ariz. 1951
Arizona Corp. Commission v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co. 228 P.2d 749 Ariz. 1951
125 P. 884 , 885: “The superior courts have jurisdiction in all causes and of all proceedings in which jurisdiction shall not have been vested exclusively in some other court.
Roberts v. Spray 223 P.2d 808 Ariz. 1950
Roberts v. Spray 223 P.2d 808 Ariz. 1950
125 P. 884 ; , 185 P. 136 ; , 146 P. 494 ; American Federation of Labor v. American Sash & Door Co., , .
Barrows v. Garvey 193 P.2d 913 Ariz. 1948
Barrows v. Garvey 193 P.2d 913 Ariz. 1948
(d) , 125 P. 884, 892 , clearly differentiates between Art. 6, Sec.
Concini v. Sullivan 188 P.2d 592 Ariz. 1948
Concini v. Sullivan 188 P.2d 592 Ariz. 1948
Brooks v. Kerby 60 P.2d 1074 Ariz. 1936
Brooks v. Kerby 60 P.2d 1074 Ariz. 1936
Estes v. State of Arizona 58 P.2d 753 Ariz. 1936
Estes v. State of Arizona 58 P.2d 753 Ariz. 1936
Windes v. Frohmiller 3 P.2d 275 Ariz. 1931
Windes v. Frohmiller 3 P.2d 275 Ariz. 1931
Atkinson, Kier Bros., Spicer Co. v. Industrial Commission 274 P. 634 Ariz. 1929
Atkinson, Kier Bros., Spicer Co. v. Industrial Commission 274 P. 634 Ariz. 1929
Herndon v. Hammons 262 P. 620 Ariz. 1927
Herndon v. Hammons 262 P. 620 Ariz. 1927
Burnside v. Douglas School District No. 27 261 P. 629 Ariz. 1927