Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Clark v. Boyce, 185 P. 136.

38 citing documents.

Az Free Enterprise Club v. Katie Hobbs Ariz. 2022
Az Free Enterprise Club v. Katie Hobbs Ariz. 2022
(remarking that “we must admit that it has cost us no little trouble to arrive at a conclusion” concerning the interpretation of section 1(3)).
Winterbottom v. Ronan 258 P.3d 182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Winterbottom v. Ronan 258 P.3d 182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
-43 , ( , 185 P. 136 (1919)).
Awsienko v. Cohen 257 P.3d 175 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Awsienko v. Cohen 257 P.3d 175 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
( , 185 P. 136, 140 (1919)).
State v. Stummer 171 P.3d 1229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Stummer 171 P.3d 1229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
( , 185 P. 136, 140 (1919)).
Garcia v. Browning 151 P.3d 533 Ariz. 2007
Garcia v. Browning 151 P.3d 533 Ariz. 2007
1, § 1(3); 185 P. 136, 137 (1919).
State v. Soltero 71 P.3d 370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Soltero 71 P.3d 370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
1 ; 547, 185 P. 136, 137 (1919)(“Emergency laws when passed according to the forms prescribed by the Constitution, become effective at once and prevent a referendum.”).
In Re Cameron T. 949 P.2d 545 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
In Re Cameron T. 949 P.2d 545 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
See *461 , 185 P. 136, 140 (1919)
Manhattan-Dickman Construction Co. v. Shawler 558 P.2d 894 Ariz. 1976
Manhattan-Dickman Construction Co. v. Shawler 558 P.2d 894 Ariz. 1976
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
American Federation of Labor v. American Sash & Door Co., , , 185 P. 136 (1919); State ex rel.
Kilpatrick v. Superior Court 466 P.2d 18 Ariz. 1970
Kilpatrick v. Superior Court 466 P.2d 18 Ariz. 1970
185 P. 136 ; State ex rel.
State Ex Rel. Jones v. Lockhart 265 P.2d 447 Ariz. 1953
State Ex Rel. Jones v. Lockhart 265 P.2d 447 Ariz. 1953
It is fundamental that “The prime effort in construing Constitutions or statutes is to ascertain the intention of those who framed them * * *.” , 185 P. 136, 140 .
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., , .
Board of Supervisors v. Pratt 57 P.2d 1220 Ariz. 1936
Board of Supervisors v. Pratt 57 P.2d 1220 Ariz. 1936
It is only where there is no doubt as to the intention of those who frame an amendment or statute that a court may modify, alter or supply words that will ‘ ‘ obviate any repugnancy to or inconsistency with such intention,” and by so doing permit “particular provisions” to be read or *543 construed otherwise than ‘ ‘ according to their literal meaning.” , 185 Pac.
State Ex Rel. La Prade v. Cox 30 P.2d 825 Ariz. 1934
State Ex Rel. La Prade v. Cox 30 P.2d 825 Ariz. 1934
Cox v. Stults Eagle Drug Co. 21 P.2d 914 Ariz. 1933
Porter v. Hall 271 P. 411 Ariz. 1928
Porter v. Hall 271 P. 411 Ariz. 1928
Home Accident Insurance v. Industrial Commission 269 P. 501 Ariz. 1928
Home Accident Insurance v. Industrial Commission 269 P. 501 Ariz. 1928
McBride v. Kerby 260 P. 435 Ariz. 1927
McBride v. Kerby 260 P. 435 Ariz. 1927
Brown v. State 220 P. 225 Ariz. 1923
Brown v. State 220 P. 225 Ariz. 1923
Moeur v. Mann 185 P. 146 Ariz. 1919