Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Tillotson v. Frohmiller, 271 P. 867.

38 citing documents.

PETERSEN v. FONTES Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
PETERSEN v. FONTES Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Montenegro decried that distinction: “The constitutional reservation to the people of the powers of initiative and referendum ‘does not in any way affect the division of powers; they remain the same.’” Montenegro, ___ Ariz. at ___ ¶ 24, 576 P.3d at 698 ().
Montenegro v. Fontes Ariz. 2025
Montenegro v. Fontes Ariz. 2025
Karen Fann v. State of Arizona 493 P.3d 246 Ariz. 2021
Karen Fann v. State of Arizona 493 P.3d 246 Ariz. 2021
208 monies, and the voters could not avoid this application by redefining “local revenues.” (concluding the legislature could not expand its constitutional authority to exempt “[p]roperty of” charitable associations by “redefining the term ‘property of’ to include leased property”); –02 (1928) (“[T]he people are bound by the Constitution, the same as the Legislature.”).
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community v. Hull 945 P.2d 818 Ariz. 1997
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community v. Hull 945 P.2d 818 Ariz. 1997
271 P. 867 (1928) (under Ariz. Const. art. III, Legislature must set state policy and cannot delegate power to executive or other agency); see also State ex rel.
State Ex Rel. Woods v. Block 942 P.2d 428 Ariz. 1997
State Ex Rel. Woods v. Block 942 P.2d 428 Ariz. 1997
Wilderness World, Inc. v. Department of Revenue 895 P.2d 108 Ariz. 1995
Wilderness World, Inc. v. Department of Revenue 895 P.2d 108 Ariz. 1995
This is necessary, under [art. 9, § 3], in order that the ‘object’ for which taxes are levied may be known to the taxpayer.” -405 , 271 P. 867, 871 (1928).
Lake Havasu City v. Mohave County 675 P.2d 1371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Lake Havasu City v. Mohave County 675 P.2d 1371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Cochise County v. Dandoy 567 P.2d 1182 Ariz. 1977
Cochise County v. Dandoy 567 P.2d 1182 Ariz. 1977
State Compensation Fund v. De La Fuente 501 P.2d 422 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State Compensation Fund v. De La Fuente 501 P.2d 422 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
The Arizona court has aptly described, , 271 P. 867 (1928): “ ‘One of the settled maxims in constitutional law is that the power conferred!
Hudson v. Kelly 263 P.2d 362 Ariz. 1953
Hudson v. Kelly 263 P.2d 362 Ariz. 1953
State Board of Barber Examiners v. Edwards 258 P.2d 418 Ariz. 1953
State Board of Barber Examiners v. Edwards 258 P.2d 418 Ariz. 1953
563 ; , 271 P. 867 ; , 276 P. 1 ; , ; , ; , .
State v. Marana Plantations, Inc. 252 P.2d 87 Ariz. 1953
State v. Marana Plantations, Inc. 252 P.2d 87 Ariz. 1953
Haggard v. Industrial Commission 223 P.2d 915 Ariz. 1950
Haggard v. Industrial Commission 223 P.2d 915 Ariz. 1950
Peters v. Frye 223 P.2d 176 Ariz. 1950
Peters v. Frye 223 P.2d 176 Ariz. 1950
It appears to us that counsel for plaintiffs, in urging this contention, has failed to differentiate between the delegation of power to enact laws, which cannot be done, , 271 P. 867 ; , , and the conferring of authority to administer a law in a manner that involves the exercise of administrative discretion.
Eide v. Frohmiller 216 P.2d 726 Ariz. 1950
Eide v. Frohmiller 216 P.2d 726 Ariz. 1950
Hernandez v. Frohmiller 204 P.2d 854 Ariz. 1949
Hernandez v. Frohmiller 204 P.2d 854 Ariz. 1949
Article 22, section 14, Constitution of Arizona; , 271 P. 867 .
Duhame v. State Tax Commission 179 P.2d 252 Ariz. 1947
Duhame v. State Tax Commission 179 P.2d 252 Ariz. 1947
Crane v. Frohmiller 45 P.2d 955 Ariz. 1935
Crane v. Frohmiller 45 P.2d 955 Ariz. 1935
State Tax Commission v. Shattuck 38 P.2d 631 Ariz. 1934
State Tax Commission v. Shattuck 38 P.2d 631 Ariz. 1934
In holding that the Intangible Property Tax Law states the object of the tax with sufficient definiteness to comply with the requirements of sections 3 and 9 of article 9 of the Constitution, , 271 Pac.