Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Abbey v. Green, 235 P. 150.
- Franklin Bruce Ross v. Ken Bennett 265 P.3d 356 Ariz. 2011
-
Franklin Bruce Ross v. Ken Bennett
265 P.3d 356
Ariz. 2011
of Supervisors, Johnson v. Maehling, 123 Ariz. 15, 18, - 74, 235 P. 150, 157 (1925).
- Arizona City Sanitary Dist. v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
- Arizona City Sanitary Dist. v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
- Hancock v. Bisnar 132 P.3d 283 Ariz. 2006
- Hancock v. Bisnar 132 P.3d 283 Ariz. 2006
- Zajac v. City of Casa Grande 102 P.3d 297 Ariz. 2004
-
Zajac v. City of Casa Grande
102 P.3d 297
Ariz. 2004
326-27, -61 (1947)(same); (“[I]f parties allow an election to proceed in violation of the law which prescribes the manner in which it shall be held, they may not, after the people have voted, then question the procedure.”); 235 P. 150, 155 (1925) (“[A] duty is imposed upon one who would question the correctness or regularity of an election to act promptly, and, if he has information before the election of any defects in the proceedings, he must take steps to prevent the election .
- Jennings v. Woods 982 P.2d 274 Ariz. 1999
-
Jennings v. Woods
982 P.2d 274
Ariz. 1999
7 , *319 235 P. 150, 157 (1925); Boehringer, 16 Ariz. at 60 , 141 P. at 131 (Franklin, C.J., dissenting) (noting the legislature’s power to extend or modify the common law writ of quo warranto ).
- Miller v. Picacho Elementary School District 33 857 P.2d 1308 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
-
Miller v. Picacho Elementary School District 33
857 P.2d 1308
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
235 P. 150 (1925) (foundation of popular governments is that will of majority controls in elections).
- Green v. Osborne 758 P.2d 138 Ariz. 1988
- Green v. Osborne 758 P.2d 138 Ariz. 1988
- Moore v. City of Page 713 P.2d 813 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
-
Moore v. City of Page
713 P.2d 813
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
12 P. 730 (1887); that the election was held in a building other than that designated in the election notice, , 127 P. 748 (1912); that ineligible electors were allowed to vote and that the ballot was not in the form required, , 235 P. 150 (1925).
- Johnson v. Maehling 597 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1979
- Johnson v. Maehling 597 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1979
- Stillman v. Marston 484 P.2d 628 Ariz. 1971
-
Stillman v. Marston
484 P.2d 628
Ariz. 1971
It holds good ‘ * * * at least until the next succeeding registration period has expired, unless the Legislature had otherwise directed’.” -72 , 235 P. 150, 157 (1925).
- Tucson Manor, Inc. v. Federal Nat. Mortgage Ass'n 241 P.2d 1126 Ariz. 1952
-
Tucson Manor, Inc. v. Federal Nat. Mortgage Ass'n
241 P.2d 1126
Ariz. 1952
r hand seeks to invoke the “enrolled bill” rule, , , and insists that it is now too late to question whether the measure was submitted at a proper election or the necessary procedural steps followed in its submission to a vote of the people, , 130 P. 1114 ; , 235 P. 150 ; , .
- Garcia v. Sedillo 218 P.2d 721 Ariz. 1950
- Garcia v. Sedillo 218 P.2d 721 Ariz. 1950
- Parnell v. State Ex Rel. Wilson 206 P.2d 1047 Ariz. 1949
-
Parnell v. State Ex Rel. Wilson
206 P.2d 1047
Ariz. 1949
292 P. 603 ; Faulkner v. Board of Sup’rs, , 149 P. 382 ; , 235 P. 150 ; 51 C.J. 311, section 6; Daniels v. Newbold, 125 Iowa 193, 196 , 100 N.W.
- Renck v. Superior Court of Maricopa County 187 P.2d 656 Ariz. 1947
-
Renck v. Superior Court of Maricopa County
187 P.2d 656
Ariz. 1947
130 P. 1114 , 44 L.R.A.,N.S., 468; , ; , 235 P. 150 ; Prohibitory Amendment Cases, 24 Kan.
- Holmes v. Osborn 115 P.2d 775 Ariz. 1941
-
Holmes v. Osborn
115 P.2d 775
Ariz. 1941
is subject to recall,” and, , 235 Pac.
- Kerby v. Griffin 62 P.2d 1131 Ariz. 1936
- Kerby v. Griffin 62 P.2d 1131 Ariz. 1936
- Sims Printing Co. v. Frohmiller 58 P.2d 518 Ariz. 1936
- Sims Printing Co. v. Frohmiller 58 P.2d 518 Ariz. 1936
- McDonald v. Cochise County 292 P. 603 Ariz. 1930
-
McDonald v. Cochise County
292 P. 603
Ariz. 1930
This question has been *105 , 235 Pac.