Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Board of Control v. Buckstegge, 158 P. 837.

58 citing documents.

State v. Stapley 251 P.3d 1048 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Stapley 251 P.3d 1048 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
158 P. 837, 839 (1916)).
City of Tucson v. Whiteco Metrocom, Inc. 983 P.2d 759 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
City of Tucson v. Whiteco Metrocom, Inc. 983 P.2d 759 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Hancock v. McCarroll 937 P.2d 682 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Hancock v. McCarroll 937 P.2d 682 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
County supervisors “may exercise no powers except those specifically granted by statute and in the manner fixed by statute.” Mohave County v. Mohave-Kingman Estates, Inc., , ( , 158 P. 837 (1916)).
Mohave County v. Mohave-Kingman Estates, Inc. 586 P.2d 978 Ariz. 1978
Mohave County v. Mohave-Kingman Estates, Inc. 586 P.2d 978 Ariz. 1978
White v. Kaibab Road Improvement District 550 P.2d 80 Ariz. 1976
White v. Kaibab Road Improvement District 550 P.2d 80 Ariz. 1976
But, , 158 P. 837 (1916): “By confining the legislation to the subject contained in the title, neither the members of the legislature nor the people can be misled to vote for something not known to them or intended to be voted for.” 18 Ariz. at 285 .
Maricopa County Board of Supervisors v. Bell 51st Investors 495 P.2d 1315 Ariz. 1972
Maricopa County Board of Supervisors v. Bell 51st Investors 495 P.2d 1315 Ariz. 1972
And where any other method than that prescribed is followed, such acts are without jurisdiction and wholly void.” , 158 P. 837 .
Hart v. Bayless Investment & Trading Company 346 P.2d 1101 Ariz. 1959
Hart v. Bayless Investment & Trading Company 346 P.2d 1101 Ariz. 1959
Hartford Accident & , ; , ; , 158 P. 837 .
Dennis v. Jordan 229 P.2d 692 Ariz. 1951
Dennis v. Jordan 229 P.2d 692 Ariz. 1951
The consritutional provision under review has been interpreted many times, by this court and has been elaborately and extensively assayed beginning with the; *439 P. 837 , and as late and more recently , , and Opinion on Rehearing in , .
Hernandez v. Frohmiller 204 P.2d 854 Ariz. 1949
Hernandez v. Frohmiller 204 P.2d 854 Ariz. 1949
State v. Pelosi 199 P.2d 125 Ariz. 1948
State v. Pelosi 199 P.2d 125 Ariz. 1948
158 P. 837, 840 ( , ) the rule was stated in this language: “By confining the legislation to the subject contained in the title, neither the members of the Legislature nor the people can be misled to vote for something not known to them or intended to be vo
City of Tucson v. Arizona Alpha of Sigma Alpha Epsilon, Inc. 195 P.2d 562 Ariz. 1948
City of Tucson v. Arizona Alpha of Sigma Alpha Epsilon, Inc. 195 P.2d 562 Ariz. 1948
But if the method of contracting is prescribed by valid law, that method must be observed, and a contract unexecuted in whole or in part, made in any other method, or defectively made by the prescribed method, may not be enforced at the suit of either party.’ ” , 158 P. 837, 839 , as follows: “* * * The law is well settled that, where the method of exercising powers conferred by statute upon municipal corporations is specifically prescribed, that method must be followed.
Valley Nat. Bank of Phoenix v. Glover 159 P.2d 292 Ariz. 1945
Valley Nat. Bank of Phoenix v. Glover 159 P.2d 292 Ariz. 1945
State Ex Rel. Conway v. Versluis 120 P.2d 410 Ariz. 1941
State Ex Rel. Conway v. Versluis 120 P.2d 410 Ariz. 1941
Taylor v. Frohmiller 79 P.2d 961 Ariz. 1938
Taylor v. Frohmiller 79 P.2d 961 Ariz. 1938
We have considered the purpose and meaning of these two provisions of the Constitution in a number of cases, , 158 Pac.
Board of Regents v. Sullivan 42 P.2d 619 Ariz. 1935
Board of Regents v. Sullivan 42 P.2d 619 Ariz. 1935
State Tax Commission v. Shattuck 38 P.2d 631 Ariz. 1934
State Tax Commission v. Shattuck 38 P.2d 631 Ariz. 1934
Ellery v. State 22 P.2d 838 Ariz. 1933
Ellery v. State 22 P.2d 838 Ariz. 1933
Sims v. Moeur 19 P.2d 679 Ariz. 1933
Sims v. Moeur 19 P.2d 679 Ariz. 1933
Morris v. State 9 P.2d 404 Ariz. 1932
Morris v. State 9 P.2d 404 Ariz. 1932
e provision that the subject of the act shall be expressed in the title does not require that a synopsis or detailed recital of the various aspects of the subject with which the act deals shall be mentioned therein but only that the title “be sufficiently full and comprehensive as to indicate, in a general way at least, what is to follow in the way of legislation.” , 158 Pac.
Board of Supervisors v. Udall 1 P.2d 343 Ariz. 1931
Board of Supervisors v. Udall 1 P.2d 343 Ariz. 1931
Barron G. Collier, Inc. v. Paddock 291 P. 1000 Ariz. 1930
Barron G. Collier, Inc. v. Paddock 291 P. 1000 Ariz. 1930
Where the mode is prescribed and limited by law this mode is considered to be exclusive, e. g., requiring competitive bidding, or where the contract must be authorized by ordinance, or must be in writing.” , 158 Pac.
State v. Roseberry 289 P. 515 Ariz. 1930
State v. Roseberry 289 P. 515 Ariz. 1930
It is what we have said is not necessary ( , 158 Pac.
Crawford v. Favour 267 P. 412 Ariz. 1928
Crawford v. Favour 267 P. 412 Ariz. 1928
In Re Miller 244 P. 376 Ariz. 1926
In Re Miller 244 P. 376 Ariz. 1926
As said by this court in *591 , 158 Pac.
State v. Davey 232 P. 884 Ariz. 1925
State v. Davey 232 P. 884 Ariz. 1925