DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Kerby v. Griffin, 62 P.2d 1131.

58 citing documents.

  • Arizona Republican Party v. Richer Ariz. 2024
  • Arizona Republican Party v. Richer Ariz. 2024
    –44 (1936) (examining the alleged violation of certain statutes governing the pre-election distribution of initiative publicity pamphlets); –71 (1987) (examining whether an initiative petition complied with certain statutes and constitutional provisions governing “the form of t
  • Arizona Republican Party v. Richer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Arizona Republican Party v. Richer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    As the court explained, for decades Arizona courts have applied the principle that “if 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.” ¶ 9 (2002) (stating that challenges for procedural violations must be brought before the election); (holding that “procedures leading up to an election cannot be questioned after the people have voted, but
  • Karen Fann v. State of Arizona 493 P.3d 246 Ariz. 2021
  • Karen Fann v. State of Arizona 493 P.3d 246 Ariz. 2021
    v. Kiley, ¶ 33 (2017) (“The Rule applies to ‘act[s],’ which are enacted by the legislature, and does not address initiative or referendum petitions.”) (quoting Barth, 40 Ariz. at 556); (“Legislation, whether by the people or the legislature, is a definite, specific act or resolution.”); (“[A]n act approved by the people in a manner contrary to that provided by the Constitution is just as invalid as an act passed by the Legislature in a manner prohibited by constitutional mandates.” (emphasis rem
  • Jaime Molera v. reagan/invest in Education Ariz. 2018
  • Jaime Molera v. reagan/invest in Education Ariz. 2018
    of Tucson, Inc., –50 (1982) (invalidating referendum petitions that did not attach resolution); Direct Sellers Ass’n v. McBrayer, –6 (1972) (holding referendum petitions invalid where amendments were not made within time limits); –56 (1936) (holding that initiative failed to comply with publication requirement).
  • LEAGUE OF ARIZONA CITIES & TOWNS v. Brewer 146 P.3d 58 Ariz. 2006
  • LEAGUE OF ARIZONA CITIES & TOWNS v. Brewer 146 P.3d 58 Ariz. 2006
    See Adams, 74 Ariz. at 285 , 247 P.2d at 628
  • Zajac v. City of Casa Grande 102 P.3d 297 Ariz. 2004
  • Zajac v. City of Casa Grande 102 P.3d 297 Ariz. 2004
    1369 (1987)); (refusing, after the vote, to invalidate a ballot initiative alleging defects that occurred in the process prior to the election); Renck v. Superior Court, 66 Ariz. 320, 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.”); 23
  • Sherman v. City of Tempe 45 P.3d 336 Ariz. 2002
  • Sherman v. City of Tempe 45 P.3d 336 Ariz. 2002
    must be challenged before the election is held”)(-46, -36 (1936)).1 Thus, before considering the validity of Proposition 100, we first consider whether Respondents’ claim alleges a violation of the election process.
  • Sherman v. City of Tempe 24 P.3d 1285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • Sherman v. City of Tempe 24 P.3d 1285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
    Reform, 180 Ariz. at 588 , 886 P.2d at 1344 (concluding that the legisla ture has a constitutional duty to provide procedures for informing voters about initiative proposals); , (stating that “in order to secure wise legislation,” voters must “be fully informed as to the nature and details of the measure upon which they are called to pass”).
  • Winkle v. City of Tucson 949 P.2d 502 Ariz. 1997
  • Winkle v. City of Tucson 949 P.2d 502 Ariz. 1997
    See Fairness & Accountability, 180 Ariz. at 587-88 , 886 P.2d at 1343-44 (discussing the necessity of compliance with publication requirements); , (enjoining election for failure to follow statutorily required publishing procedure that created procedural defect).
  • McComb v. Superior Court 943 P.2d 878 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
  • McComb v. Superior Court 943 P.2d 878 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
    at 470 , 737 P.2d at 1369 (-46 , -36 (1936)).
  • Airness & Accountability in Insurance Reform v. Greene 886 P.2d 1338 Ariz. 1994
  • FAIRNESS & ACCT. IN INS. REFORM v. Greene 886 P.2d 1338 Ariz. 1994
  • FAIRNESS & ACCT. IN INS. REFORM v. Greene 886 P.2d 1338 Ariz. 1994
  • Airness & Accountability in Insurance Reform v. Greene 886 P.2d 1338 Ariz. 1994
  • Kromko v. Superior Court 811 P.2d 12 Ariz. 1991
  • Kromko v. Superior Court 811 P.2d 12 Ariz. 1991
    An action to enjoin placing an initiative or referendum proposal on the ballot is equitable in nature, , and therefore may be subject to equitable defenses such as laches.
  • Green v. Osborne 758 P.2d 138 Ariz. 1988
  • Green v. Osborne 758 P.2d 138 Ariz. 1988
  • Tilson v. Mofford 737 P.2d 1367 Ariz. 1987
  • Tilson v. Mofford 737 P.2d 1367 Ariz. 1987
  • 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
  • Searles v. Strauch 716 P.2d 421 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • Searles v. Strauch 716 P.2d 421 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
    Thus, , : [Wjhen it appears affirmatively the constitutional and statutory rules in regard to the manner in which initiative and referendum petitions should be submitted have been so far violated that there has been no substantial compliance therewith, ...
  • 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
    the court stated at page 452, 62 P.2d at page 1138 : “The general rule, and that which we have adopted in Arizona, is that statutory directions as to the time and manner of giving notice of an election are mandatory and will be upheld strictly in a direct action, such as this, instituted before
  • Direct Sellers Ass'n v. McBrayer 492 P.2d 727 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • Direct Sellers Ass'n v. McBrayer 492 P.2d 727 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
    In arriving at this determination it is necessary to take into consideration the various other constitutional provisions dealing with initiative and referendum measures, and if possible to give all such provisions effect
  • City of Scottsdale v. Superior Court 439 P.2d 290 Ariz. 1968
  • City of Scottsdale v. Superior Court 439 P.2d 290 Ariz. 1968
  • City of Phoenix v. Superior Court 419 P.2d 49 Ariz. 1966
  • City of Phoenix v. Superior Court 419 P.2d 49 Ariz. 1966
    Respondents direct our attention to two Arizona cases, , , , , as authority for the proposition that the statute, § 16-862, supra, is mandatory.
  • Iman v. Bolin 404 P.2d 705 Ariz. 1965
  • Iman v. Bolin 404 P.2d 705 Ariz. 1965
    it was stated: "[W]hen it appears affirmatively the constitutional and statutory rules in regard to the manner in which initiative and referendum petitions should be submitted have been so far violated that there has been no substantial compliance therewith, that the courts have jurisdictio
  • Town of Scottsdale v. State Ex Rel. Pickrell 399 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
  • Town of Scottsdale v. State Ex Rel. Pickrell 399 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
  • Griffin v. Buzard 342 P.2d 201 Ariz. 1959
  • Griffin v. Buzard 342 P.2d 201 Ariz. 1959
    We do not deem the authorities cited in support thereof, , ; , , , , to be in point.
  • Williams v. Parrack 319 P.2d 989 Ariz. 1957
  • Williams v. Parrack 319 P.2d 989 Ariz. 1957