Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Kerby v. Luhrs, 36 P.2d 549.

44 citing documents.

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
–15 (1934); ¶ 3 (2007) (stating that the Separate Amendment Rule ensures that voters are permitted “to express their separate opinion as to each proposed constitutional amendment” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Mathis 290 P.3d 1226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Mathis 290 P.3d 1226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
-78 , -27 (1934) (“[C]onstitutions are for the purpose of laying down broad general principles, and not the expression of minute details of law.”); , (explaining that written instruments “are to be construed in the light of their purpose, and this is particularly applicable to Constitutions, which are by necessity general in their nature, and presumably intended to remain in force for a long period of time”).
McLaughlin v. Bennett 238 P.3d 619 Ariz. 2010
McLaughlin v. Bennett 238 P.3d 619 Ariz. 2010
“The clear import of this provision is that voters must be allowed to express their separate opinion as to each proposed constitutional amendment.” Clean Elections Inst., *354 , 244 ¶ 7, , (recognizing the separate amendment rule was “intended to prevent the pernicious practice of ‘logrolling’ in the submission of a constitutional amendment”).
Bentley v. Building Our Future 172 P.3d 860 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Bentley v. Building Our Future 172 P.3d 860 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
237, 238 (Spring 2005) (-15 , ).
Arizona Together v. Brewer 149 P.3d 742 Ariz. 2007
Arizona Together v. Brewer 149 P.3d 742 Ariz. 2007
After a hearing, the superior court concluded that Proposition 107 constitutes a
Clean Elections Institute, Inc. v. Brewer 99 P.3d 570 Ariz. 2004
Clean Elections Institute, Inc. v. Brewer 99 P.3d 570 Ariz. 2004
When a proposed amendment consists of multiple provisions, the proposal constitutes one amendment under the terms of the constitution only if its provisions “are sufficiently related to a common purpose or principle that the proposal can be said to constitute a consistent and workable whole on the general topic embraced, that, logically speaking, should stand or fall as a whole.” , (emphasis added).
Bennett v. Napolitano 81 P.3d 311 Ariz. 2003
Bennett v. Napolitano 81 P.3d 311 Ariz. 2003
2, § 13.7 This rule, wisely placed, “was intended to prevent the pernicious practice of ‘logrolling.’”
Korte v. Bayless 16 P.3d 200 Ariz. 2001
Tax Protection Alliance v. Arizonans Against Unfair Tax Schemes 16 P.3d 207 Ariz. 2001
Regner v. Bayless 16 P.3d 209 Ariz. 2001
Regner v. Bayless 16 P.3d 209 Ariz. 2001
should stand or fall as a whole.’ ” , at ¶ 10, , 203 at ¶ 10 (2001) ( , ).
Korte v. Bayless 16 P.3d 200 Ariz. 2001
Although both proponents and opponents of placing Proposition 100 on the ballot make cogent and persuasive arguments, we narrowly conclude that Proposition 100
Tax Protection Alliance v. Arizonans Against Unfair Tax Schemes 16 P.3d 207 Ariz. 2001
should stand or fall as a whole.’ ” ,176 at ¶10, , at ¶10 (2001) ( , ).
Maricopa County v. Property Tax Oversight Commission 933 P.2d 1289 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Maricopa County v. Property Tax Oversight Commission 933 P.2d 1289 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
in which it stated that constitutions “are by necessity general in their nature, and presumably intended to remain in force for a long period of time,” and must accordingly “be construed in the light of their purpose.” Salt River, 172 Ariz. at 342 , 837 P.2d at 144 .
Mathieu v. Mahoney 851 P.2d 81 Ariz. 1993
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Apache County 837 P.2d 139 Ariz. 1992
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Apache County 837 P.2d 139 Ariz. 1992
Pine semantic or grammatical distinctions, legalistic doctrine, and parsing of sentences may lead us to results quite different from the objectives which the framers intended to accomplish.”); , (constitutions “are by necessity general in their nature, and presumably intended to remain in force for a long period of time” and must therefore “be construed in the light of their purpose”).
Slayton v. Shumway 800 P.2d 590 Ariz. 1990
Slayton v. Shumway 800 P.2d 590 Ariz. 1990
dopted a single subject rule that prevents the “pernicious practice of ‘log-rolling’ ” whereby dissimilar provisions are combined in a single proposition “so that voters must vote for or against the whole package even though they would have voted differently had the propositions been submitted separately.” , ( , ).
Tilson v. Mofford 737 P.2d 1367 Ariz. 1987
Tilson v. Mofford 737 P.2d 1367 Ariz. 1987
In the leading case interpreting article 21, section 1, this court recognized that this constitutional provision “was intended to prevent the pernicious practice of 'log-rolling’ in the submission of a constitutional amendment.”
Hood v. State 539 P.2d 931 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Hood v. State 539 P.2d 931 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Ruth v. Industrial Commission 490 P.2d 828 Ariz. 1971
Ruth v. Industrial Commission 490 P.2d 828 Ariz. 1971
State Ex Rel. Nelson v. Jordan 449 P.2d 18 Ariz. 1968
State Ex Rel. Nelson v. Jordan 449 P.2d 18 Ariz. 1968
City of Scottsdale v. Superior Court 439 P.2d 290 Ariz. 1968
City of Scottsdale v. Superior Court 439 P.2d 290 Ariz. 1968
“The fallacy of this reasoning is shown by the fact that the court in that case [Barth v. White1, supra] considered carefully the same jurisdictional question raised herein, and in its unanimous opinion expressly held that it did have jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter on its merits, and proceeded to do so,” and further: “ , 36 Pac.2d 549 , 94 A.L.R.
Fugina v. Donovan 104 N.W.2d 911 Minn. 1960
State Ex Rel. Jones v. Lockhart 265 P.2d 447 Ariz. 1953
State Ex Rel. Jones v. Lockhart 265 P.2d 447 Ariz. 1953
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
Ahrens v. Kerby, supra; , ; , , 94 A.L.R.
Kerby v. Griffin 62 P.2d 1131 Ariz. 1936
Kerby v. Griffin 62 P.2d 1131 Ariz. 1936