Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Barth v. White, 14 P.2d 743.

32 citing documents.

Knight v. Fontes Ariz. 2025
Knight v. Fontes Ariz. 2025
¶ 16 (2003) (); ¶ 43 (2020)
Karen Fann v. State of Arizona 493 P.3d 246 Ariz. 2021
Karen Fann v. State of Arizona 493 P.3d 246 Ariz. 2021
(“If it be true that the Legislature, which must submit an amendment either by an act or joint resolution, is not subject to such limitations, much less would it seem to be that an initiative petition by the people, which is neither an act nor joint resolution, should be subject thereto.”); and Ariz. Chamb
Leach v. reagan/clean Energy for a Healthy Arizona 430 P.3d 1241 Ariz. 2018
Leach v. reagan/clean Energy for a Healthy Arizona 430 P.3d 1241 Ariz. 2018
mitted to a vote as in compelling that one legally sufficient should be so submitted.” 35 LEACH v. REAGAN/ CLEAN ENERGY FOR A HEALTHY ARIZONA JUSTICE GOULD, joined by JUSTICES BOLICK and LOPEZ Concurring in part and Dissenting in part Kromko, 168 Ariz. at 56 (); cf. Ariz. Const. art. 7, § 12 (stating the legislature has the authority to enact “registration and other laws to secure the purity of elections and guard against abuses of the elective franchise”).
Louis Hoffman v. Michele Reagan 429 P.3d 70 Ariz. 2018
Louis Hoffman v. Michele Reagan 429 P.3d 70 Ariz. 2018
See Citizens Clean Elections Com’n v. Myers, ¶ 35 (2000) (single subject rule “applies only to the acts of the legislature”); (single subject rule is “applicable only to acts of the legislature”); -57 (1932) (same).
Chamber of Commerce v. Hon. kiley/state 399 P.3d 80 Ariz. 2017
Chamber of Commerce v. Hon. kiley/state 399 P.3d 80 Ariz. 2017
See Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n v. Myers, ¶ 36 (2000); -56 (1932).
Wilhelm v. Brewer 192 P.3d 404 Ariz. 2008
Wilhelm v. Brewer 192 P.3d 404 Ariz. 2008
¶6 We have held that the title and text provision merely requires “some title and some text.” ¶ 10, ( ).
Meyers v. Bayless 965 P.2d 768 Ariz. 1998
Meyers v. Bayless 965 P.2d 768 Ariz. 1998
*378 ¶ 10 We have said that the constitutional requirement that an initiative petition be attached to the title and text of the proposed measure means there must be “some title and some text.”
Kromko v. Superior Court 811 P.2d 12 Ariz. 1991
Kromko v. Superior Court 811 P.2d 12 Ariz. 1991
This would run counter to the general spirit of the initiative and referendum, which recognizes “no reason why the interest of a citizen may not be as great in preventing an initiative petition not legally sufficient from being submitted to a vote as in compelling that one legally sufficient should be so submitted.”
Tilson v. Mofford 737 P.2d 1367 Ariz. 1987
Tilson v. Mofford 737 P.2d 1367 Ariz. 1987
143 P. 117 (1914), as a "line of authority' that an initiative must be placed on the ballot if it has “some title,” “some text" and the requisite number of signatures.
Cottonwood Development v. Foothills Area Coalition of Tucson, Inc. 653 P.2d 694 Ariz. 1982
Cottonwood Development v. Foothills Area Coalition of Tucson, Inc. 653 P.2d 694 Ariz. 1982
First, FACT, , , contends that substantial compliance is sufficient, as those cases state that a petition need only contain “some title and some text.” We do not agree.
City of Scottsdale v. Superior Court 439 P.2d 290 Ariz. 1968
City of Scottsdale v. Superior Court 439 P.2d 290 Ariz. 1968
Iman v. Bolin 404 P.2d 705 Ariz. 1965
Iman v. Bolin 404 P.2d 705 Ariz. 1965
Williams v. Parrack 319 P.2d 989 Ariz. 1957
Williams v. Parrack 319 P.2d 989 Ariz. 1957
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
Kerby v. Griffin 62 P.2d 1131 Ariz. 1936
Kerby v. Griffin 62 P.2d 1131 Ariz. 1936
Sims v. Moeur 19 P.2d 679 Ariz. 1933
Sims v. Moeur 19 P.2d 679 Ariz. 1933
It should be stated that R. B. Sims had an undoubted right to bring and prosecute the action against the Secretary of State to test the legality and sufficiency of the initiated measure, and to ask for a restraining order pending the determination of that issue [section 1744, Rev. Code 1928; , 14 Pac.