Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Campbell v. Hunt, 162 P. 382.

29 citing documents.

Jennings v. Woods 982 P.2d 274 Ariz. 1999
Jennings v. Woods 982 P.2d 274 Ariz. 1999
-19 , -5 (1979) (declaring registrations valid that were obtained from ineligible registrars); , 162 P. 882 , 888 (1917) (“With respect to innocent persons dealing with him, he is a lawful officer, so far as the validity of his official acts is concerned____ [H]e is a good officer so far as the interests of the public and third persons require him to be so, and to that extent he is recognized by the law.”)
Shepherd v. Brumback 714 P.2d 450 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Shepherd v. Brumback 714 P.2d 450 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
162 P. 882 (1917), which says, in dicta, that it is not the canvass but the casting of the votes which determines the validity of an election.
Campbell v. Arnold 590 P.2d 909 Ariz. 1979
State Ex Rel. Sawyer v. LaSota 580 P.2d 714 Ariz. 1978
State Ex Rel. Sawyer v. LaSota 580 P.2d 714 Ariz. 1978
162 P. 882 , 886 (1917), we held: “The qualifications for Governor are specifically detailed in the Constitution, and the Legislature is therefore powerless to add to or detract from the qualifications prescribed.
State ex rel. Corbin v. Superior Court 412 P.2d 45 Ariz. 1966
State ex rel. Corbin v. Superior Court 412 P.2d 45 Ariz. 1966
cted to an inferior tribunal, but the writ is not to issue where there exists a “plain, adequate and speedy remedy at law.” , ; , ; , ; , 226 P. 529 ; P. 12 ; , 162 P. 882 .
Elfbrandt v. Russell 381 P.2d 554 Ariz. 1963
Elfbrandt v. Russell 381 P.2d 554 Ariz. 1963
Harless, , ; , 162 P. 882 .
Emery v. Superior Court of Maricopa County 360 P.2d 1025 Ariz. 1961
Emery v. Superior Court of Maricopa County 360 P.2d 1025 Ariz. 1961
ther jurisdiction, that we can discover, where the writ is held to be the initial pleading after its issuance.” The soundness of this rule becomes adundantly clear when it is recalled that mandamus is an extraordinary remedy ■designed to expedite matters where the applicant has an immediate and complete right to the thing demanded ( , ; , 162 P. 882 ) and that the alternative writ issues summarily with no requirement that the petition be served on the respondent.
Whitney v. Bolin 330 P.2d 1003 Ariz. 1958
Whitney v. Bolin 330 P.2d 1003 Ariz. 1958
We rec *48 , 162 P. 882 , 886, wherein we said: “The qualifications for Governor are specifically detailed in the Constitution, and the Legislature is therefore powerless to add to or detract from the qualifications prescribed.” Other courts have adopted a similar construction for their constitutions.
Brown v. Superior Court 303 P.2d 990 Ariz. 1956
Brown v. Superior Court 303 P.2d 990 Ariz. 1956
See, , 162 P. 882 , 885, and Cf. State ex rel.
Adams v. Bolin 271 P.2d 472 Ariz. 1954
Adams v. Bolin 271 P.2d 472 Ariz. 1954
Zuniga v. Superior Court of State 269 P.2d 720 Ariz. 1954
Zuniga v. Superior Court of State 269 P.2d 720 Ariz. 1954
Section 28-201, A.C.A.1939, provides that the writ may issue “ * * * to compel the performance of an act which the law specially imposes as a duty resulting from an office * * * and there is not a plain, speedy and adequate remedy at law.” , 162 P. 882 , 884: “ * * * The writ hereunder is not, except in a limited sense, prerogative in character.
Graham v. Moore 105 P.2d 962 Ariz. 1940
Graham v. Moore 105 P.2d 962 Ariz. 1940
McCarthy v. State Ex Rel. Harless 101 P.2d 449 Ariz. 1940
McCarthy v. State Ex Rel. Harless 101 P.2d 449 Ariz. 1940
State Ex Rel. SULLIVAN v. Moore 64 P.2d 809 Ariz. 1937
State Ex Rel. SULLIVAN v. Moore 64 P.2d 809 Ariz. 1937
McCluskey v. Hunter 269 P. 73 Ariz. 1928
McCluskey v. Hunter 269 P. 73 Ariz. 1928
so facto, the office of industrial commissioner, -since section 3, chapter 83, Session Laws of 1925, prohibits a member of the Industrial Commission from holding “any office of trust or profit” or from engaging in “any occupation or business other than his duties as such commissioner.” “It is well settled by an overwhelming array of authority, ” , 162 Pac.