Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Hunt v. Campbell, 169 P. 596.

31 citing documents.

Crosby v. Hon. fish/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Crosby v. Hon. fish/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
-79 (1917) (When the board refuses to perform its duty to canvass the election, mandamus action will compel it to do so.).
Daniel Lachance, Henry Stephen Conroy v. County of Cochise Cochise County Jail District Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
Daniel Lachance, Henry Stephen Conroy v. County of Cochise Cochise County Jail District Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
Hounshell v. White 199 P.3d 636 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Hounshell v. White 199 P.3d 636 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
See, , (stating that to prevail in a tort action for fraud, fraud cannot be presumed but must be proven by clear and convincing evidence); , 169 P. 596, 600 (1917) (“[N]o court ...
Bender v. Bender 597 P.2d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Bender v. Bender 597 P.2d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
169 P. 596 (1917); Fruth v. Divito, 26 Ariz.App.
Stemkowski v. Industrial Commission 556 P.2d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Stemkowski v. Industrial Commission 556 P.2d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
That the Arizona Supreme Court has said: ‘This court has adhered to the general rule of law that public officers are presumed to have done their duty, , 169 P. 596 (1917); Industrial Commission of Arizona v. J. & J. Const. Co., P.2d 762 (1951), and that acts of public officials are presumed to be correct and legal in absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary
City of Phoenix v. Butler 515 P.2d 1180 Ariz. 1973
City of Phoenix v. Butler 515 P.2d 1180 Ariz. 1973
Verdugo v. Industrial Commission 492 P.2d 705 Ariz. 1972
Verdugo v. Industrial Commission 492 P.2d 705 Ariz. 1972
what James calls, at § 7.9, “[a]ccess to evidence”, or, as he explains in § 7.8, his section on burden of proof: “Another rule * * * would put it on the party having the readier access to knowledge about the fact in question.” This court has adhered to the general rule of law that public officers are presumed to have done their duty, , 169 P. 596 (1917); Industrial Commission of Arizona v. J. & J. Const. Co., , and that acts of public officials are presumed to be correct and legal in absence
White v. De Arman 362 P.2d 122 Ariz. 1961
White v. De Arman 362 P.2d 122 Ariz. 1961
The wording in the statute is clear, that the board of supervisors shall prepare the instructions for the guidance of the voters and election officers at the election, according to which the election “shall be conducted and which shall govern the voters and election officers.” , 169 P. 596 , this court held that the provisions of this statute must be strictly complied with.
Garcia v. Sedillo 218 P.2d 721 Ariz. 1950
Garcia v. Sedillo 218 P.2d 721 Ariz. 1950
It is with poor grace that the appellee relies on the trial court’s Finding No. 72, supra, insisting that appellant did not file prior to this action with the Supreme Executive Council of the organization a com *198 , 169 P. 596 .
State Ex Rel. American Federation, Etc. v. Hanson 38 N.W.2d 845 Minn. 1949
Grounds v. Lawe 193 P.2d 447 Ariz. 1948
Grounds v. Lawe 193 P.2d 447 Ariz. 1948
169 P. 596 , 600 , citing cases.
Hein v. Nutt 184 P.2d 656 Ariz. 1947
Yuma County v. Hanneman 28 P.2d 622 Ariz. 1934
Yuma County v. Hanneman 28 P.2d 622 Ariz. 1934
Bank of Lowell v. Cox 279 P. 257 Ariz. 1929
Bank of Lowell v. Cox 279 P. 257 Ariz. 1929
Findley v. Sorenson 276 P. 843 Ariz. 1929
Findley v. Sorenson 276 P. 843 Ariz. 1929
Roberson v. Teel 275 P. 2 Ariz. 1929
Donahue v. Babbitt 227 P. 995 Ariz. 1924
Donahue v. Babbitt 227 P. 995 Ariz. 1924