Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Hunt v. Mohave County, 162 P. 600.

28 citing documents.

Dowling v. Stapley 179 P.3d 960 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Dowling v. Stapley 179 P.3d 960 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
In this regard, “county” is defined as the “largest territorial division for local government in state,” Black’s Law Dictionary 245 (6th ed.1991), or “the largest territorial division for local government within a state of the U.S.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 265 (10th ed.2001); , 162 P. 600, 602 (1917) (“The counties are political subdivisions of the state created to aid in the administration of the state’s laws and for the purpose of local self-government.”); , 68 P. 525, 526 (190
Fleming v. Pima County 685 P.2d 1301 Ariz. 1984
Fleming v. Pima County 685 P.2d 1301 Ariz. 1984
In addition, a “county is a political subdivision of the state existing and created to aid in the administration of the state’s laws and for purposes of self-government.” , , 162 P. 600, 602 (1917).
Pinetop-Lakeside Sanitary District v. Ferguson 630 P.2d 1032 Ariz. 1981
Pinetop-Lakeside Sanitary District v. Ferguson 630 P.2d 1032 Ariz. 1981
Board of Sup’ , , 162 P. 600 (1917).
Davis v. Hidden 606 P.2d 36 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Davis v. Hidden 606 P.2d 36 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Schrey v. Allison Steel Mfg. Co. 255 P.2d 604 Ariz. 1953
Schrey v. Allison Steel Mfg. Co. 255 P.2d 604 Ariz. 1953
Dennis v. Jordan 229 P.2d 692 Ariz. 1951
Board of Sup'rs of Maricopa County v. Stanford 219 P.2d 769 Ariz. 1950
Board of Sup'rs of Maricopa County v. Stanford 219 P.2d 769 Ariz. 1950
Luhrs v. City of Phoenix 83 P.2d 283 Ariz. 1938
Luhrs v. City of Phoenix 83 P.2d 283 Ariz. 1938
Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Wainscott 19 P.2d 328 Ariz. 1933
Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Wainscott 19 P.2d 328 Ariz. 1933
...” And again, , 162 Pac.
Coggins v. Ely 202 P. 391 Ariz. 1921
Coggins v. Ely 202 P. 391 Ariz. 1921
Pinal County v. Lewis 194 P. 1101 Ariz. 1921
Pinal County v. Lewis 194 P. 1101 Ariz. 1921
Ross v. County of Cochise 177 P. 931 Ariz. 1919
Ross v. County of Cochise 177 P. 931 Ariz. 1919
er and by virtue of said act, is hereby validated as to such officers and ex-officers, their appointees and their heirs.” Clearly the filing of the cross-complaint by the county in this case, seeking to recover from the county treasurer the sum of $50 per month, paid the treasurer under the authority of the Salary Law of 1912, , 162 Pac.
Santa Cruz County v. McKnight 177 P. 256 Ariz. 1918
Board of Supervisors v. Stephens 177 P. 261 Ariz. 1918
Santa Cruz County v. McKnight 177 P. 256 Ariz. 1918
In Hunt y. Mohave County, , 162 Pac.
Board of Supervisors v. Stephens 177 P. 261 Ariz. 1918
Chapter 61, Laws of 1917, , 162 Pac.
Dunbar v. Cronin 164 P. 447 Ariz. 1917

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by