Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Black & White Taxicab Co. v. Standard Oil Co., 218 P. 139.

49 citing documents.

Arizona School Boards Assoc v. State Ariz. 2022
Arizona School Boards Assoc v. State Ariz. 2022
v. Babbitt, (quoting Johnson v. Harrison, 47 Minn. 575, 577 (1891)), and must be essential to the accomplishment of one main objective, Black & –94 (1923).
State v. Ohanlon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Cain v. Horne 202 P.3d 1178 Ariz. 2009
Cain v. Horne 202 P.3d 1178 Ariz. 2009
See Black & 218 P. 139, 145 (1923).
League of Ariz. Cities and Towns v. Martin 201 P.3d 517 Ariz. 2009
League of Ariz. Cities and Towns v. Martin 201 P.3d 517 Ariz. 2009
The essential parts of this definition are the “certain sum,” the “specified object,” and the “authority to spend.” Rios, 172 Ariz. at 7 , 833 P.2d at 24 (quoting Black & , 218 P. 139, 148 (1923) (Lockwood, J., dissenting)).
Forty-Seventh Legislature v. Napolitano 143 P.3d 1023 Ariz. 2006
Forty-Seventh Legislature v. Napolitano 143 P.3d 1023 Ariz. 2006
See, (reviewing a legislator’s challenge to gubernatorial item vetoes); Black & White Taxicab Co. v. Standard Oil Co., 25 Ariz. 381, 218 P. 139 (1923) (reviewing governor’s veto of the legislature’s tax imposition); P. 319 (1923) (accepting jurisdiction to determine the scope of the governor’s veto power); P. 773 (
State v. Seyrafi 32 P.3d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Seyrafi 32 P.3d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
-14 (1950) (citations omitted); Black & , 218 P. 139 (1923); Green v. Frazier, 253 U.S. 233 , 40 S.Ct.
Kotterman v. Killian 972 P.2d 606 Ariz. 1999
Kotterman v. Killian 972 P.2d 606 Ariz. 1999
Black & , 218 P. 139, 145 (1923).
Rios v. Symington 833 P.2d 20 Ariz. 1992
Rios v. Symington 833 P.2d 20 Ariz. 1992
“The essential parts of the definition, no matter how the wording may be changed, are the ‘certain sum,’ the ‘specified object,’ and the ‘authority to spend.’ Any act, or part of an act, containing all three of these elements is, and always must be, an ‘appropriation.’ ” Black & , 218 P. 139, 148 (1923) (Lockwood, J., dissenting).
Chevron Chemical Co. v. Superior Court 641 P.2d 1275 Ariz. 1982
Chevron Chemical Co. v. Superior Court 641 P.2d 1275 Ariz. 1982
134 , affirmed in part, remanded in part , , 232 P. 884 (1925); , 218 P. 139 (1923).
Litchfield Elementary School District No. 79 v. Babbitt 608 P.2d 792 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Litchfield Elementary School District No. 79 v. Babbitt 608 P.2d 792 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Iman v. Bolin 404 P.2d 705 Ariz. 1965
Iman v. Bolin 404 P.2d 705 Ariz. 1965
Black & , 218 P. 139 ; Green v. Frazier, 253 U.S. 233 , 40 S.Ct.
General Electric Co. v. Telco Supply, Inc. 325 P.2d 394 Ariz. 1958
General Electric Co. v. Telco Supply, Inc. 325 P.2d 394 Ariz. 1958
Black & , 218 P. 139 .
State v. Harold 246 P.2d 178 Ariz. 1952
State v. Harold 246 P.2d 178 Ariz. 1952
Black & , 218 P. 139 .
Roberts v. Spray 223 P.2d 808 Ariz. 1950
Roberts v. Spray 223 P.2d 808 Ariz. 1950
Black & , 218 P. 139 ; Green v. Frazier, 253 U.S. 233 , 40 S.Ct 499 , 64 L.Ed.
Millett v. Frohmiller 188 P.2d 457 Ariz. 1948
Millett v. Frohmiller 188 P.2d 457 Ariz. 1948
This is in no wise analagous to the situation in Black & , 218 P. 139 , where there was an attempt to use the veto power in such a way as to constitute an improper exercise by our chief executive of legislative powers.
State Ex Rel. Conway v. Versluis 120 P.2d 410 Ariz. 1941
State Ex Rel. Conway v. Versluis 120 P.2d 410 Ariz. 1941
933 ; Black & , 218 Pac.
Board of Regents v. Sullivan 42 P.2d 619 Ariz. 1935
Board of Regents v. Sullivan 42 P.2d 619 Ariz. 1935
837 ; Black & , 218 Pac.
State Tax Commission v. Shattuck 38 P.2d 631 Ariz. 1934
State Tax Commission v. Shattuck 38 P.2d 631 Ariz. 1934
376 ; Blade & , 218 Pac.
Sims v. Moeur 19 P.2d 679 Ariz. 1933
Sims v. Moeur 19 P.2d 679 Ariz. 1933
225 ; Black & , 218 Pac.
Crawford v. Favour 267 P. 412 Ariz. 1928
Crawford v. Favour 267 P. 412 Ariz. 1928
Hunt v. Callaghan 257 P. 648 Ariz. 1927
Hunt v. Callaghan 257 P. 648 Ariz. 1927
But this court in the case of Black White Taxicab Co. v. Standard Oil Co. , , 218 P. 139 , held the veto unconstitutional and the act to be a law as finally adopted by the legislature.
Texas Co. v. State 254 P. 1060 Ariz. 1927
Texas Co. v. State 254 P. 1060 Ariz. 1927
This construction seemed so clear that we assumed, in Black & , 218 Pac.
Hancock v. State 254 P. 225 Ariz. 1927
Hancock v. State 254 P. 225 Ariz. 1927
the true rule of construction, which has been fully established by the authorities, is that any provision of the act, directly or indirectly relating to the subject expressed in the title, and having a natural connection therewith, and not foreign thereto, should be held to be embraced in it.” We have approved and applied the rule above set up in Black & , 218 Pac.
Koch v. Johnson 243 P. 611 Ariz. 1926
Koch v. Johnson 243 P. 611 Ariz. 1926
The constitutionality of chapter 76 was expressly raised before this court in Black & , 218 Pac.
State v. Davey 232 P. 884 Ariz. 1925
State v. Davey 232 P. 884 Ariz. 1925
877 ; Black & , 218 Pac.