Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Shute v. Frohmiller, 90 P.2d 998.

32 citing documents.

Karen Fann v. State of Arizona 493 P.3d 246 Ariz. 2021
Karen Fann v. State of Arizona 493 P.3d 246 Ariz. 2021
State of Arizona Ex Rel Brnovich v. Abor Ariz. 2020
State of Arizona Ex Rel Brnovich v. Abor Ariz. 2020
See, (observing that the Attorney General has no common law powers and that the term “prescribed by law” in article 5, section 9 refers to statutes)
Johnson Utilities LLC v. Arizona Corporation Ariz. 2020
Johnson Utilities LLC v. Arizona Corporation Ariz. 2020
–90 (1939) (stating that when the Arizona Constitution states the duties of the attorney general “shall be ‘as prescribed by law’ it .
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
State v. Duran 575 P.2d 1265 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
State v. Duran 575 P.2d 1265 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Santa Rita Mining Co. v. Department of Property Valuation 530 P.2d 360 Ariz. 1975
Santa Rita Mining Co. v. Department of Property Valuation 530 P.2d 360 Ariz. 1975
Ahearn v. Bailey 451 P.2d 30 Ariz. 1969
Ahearn v. Bailey 451 P.2d 30 Ariz. 1969
Arizona State Land Department v. McFate 348 P.2d 912 Ariz. 1960
Arizona State Land Department v. McFate 348 P.2d 912 Ariz. 1960
1003: “It is true in this state, as in others, that the office of attorney general, together.
Giss v. Jordan 309 P.2d 779 Ariz. 1957
Giss v. Jordan 309 P.2d 779 Ariz. 1957
* * * “At the present day,” says Wedgewood, one of the last writers upon the meaning of English words, “this term is confined to the investigation of accounts, the examination and allowance of which is termed the audit”.’ “It was determined by this court in Shute v. Frohmiller, 1939, , , that no common-law powers or duties attach to the above enumerated constitutional officers, but only those prescribed by statute.
State Ex Rel. Morrison v. Thomas 297 P.2d 624 Ariz. 1956
State Ex Rel. Morrison v. Thomas 297 P.2d 624 Ariz. 1956
But in view of the fact that in this jurisdiction the Attorney General possesses only those powers granted to him by the Constitution and statutes, Shute v. Frohmiller, 1939, , , we must look to them for the answer to this question.
Hudson v. Kelly 263 P.2d 362 Ariz. 1953
Hudson v. Kelly 263 P.2d 362 Ariz. 1953
‘At the present day,’ says Wedgewood, one of the last writers upon the meaning of English words, ‘this term is confined to the investigation of accounts, the examination and allowance of which is termed the audit.’” It was determined by this court in Shute v. Frohmiller, 1939, , , that no common-law powers or duties attach to the above enumerated constitutional officers, but only those prescribed by statute.
Lockwood v. Jordan 231 P.2d 428 Ariz. 1951
Lockwood v. Jordan 231 P.2d 428 Ariz. 1951
Adverting first to the contention that the Act under consideration violates article 5, sections 1 and 9 of the state constitution, , .
Westover v. State 185 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1947
Westover v. State 185 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1947
held: “ * * * From this it follows necessarily, as most courts hold, that under constitutions containinig provisions similar to those in Arizona, the attorney general is not a common-law officer, one upon whom ‘the duties and powers of the attorney general as the same was known in common law’ hav
State Ex Rel. Conway v. Superior Court 131 P.2d 983 Ariz. 1942
State Ex Rel. Conway v. Superior Court 131 P.2d 983 Ariz. 1942
State Ex Rel. Frohmiller v. Hendrix 124 P.2d 768 Ariz. 1942
State Ex Rel. Frohmiller v. Hendrix 124 P.2d 768 Ariz. 1942
Industrial Commission v. School District No. 48 108 P.2d 1004 Ariz. 1941
Industrial Commission v. School District No. 48 108 P.2d 1004 Ariz. 1941
The attorney general of Arizona is a constitutional officer and his powers and duties are “prescribed by law.” , 90 Pac.