Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Whitman v. Moore, 125 P.2d 445.

52 citing documents.

Az Free Enterprise Club v. Katie Hobbs Ariz. 2022
Az Free Enterprise Club v. Katie Hobbs Ariz. 2022
Instead, the Court established its own logic, beliefs, and self-satisfying understanding of how section 1(3) should work, supra ¶¶ 55–59, and wholly failed to address the historical record reflecting the framers’ intent before analyzing the language in question, (“Whether the attitude of the convention and the voters was wise is not for this court to say .
Patrick McKenna v. Javier Soto 481 P.3d 695 Ariz. 2021
Patrick McKenna v. Javier Soto 481 P.3d 695 Ariz. 2021
Judith K Lohr v. Shawnna Bolick 471 P.3d 639 Ariz. 2020
Judith K Lohr v. Shawnna Bolick 471 P.3d 639 Ariz. 2020
(“The purpose of requiring the signature of the circulator is so that if any question arises in which his testimony is needed, he can readily be found.”).
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
overruled, in part, (stating that whether to include initiative and referendum in our constitution “was a burning issue” at statehood and both the delegates and the voters considered its inclusion “among the most important” provisions).
State of Arizona v. Robert Arthur Ergonis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Robert Arthur Ergonis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
scope of those rights”), quoting Ariz. Const., art. II, § 2.1(D); (rights created by initiative or referendum not subject to derogation by legislature; “„legislative authority, acting in a representative capacity only, [i]s in all respects intended to be subordinate to direct action by the people‟”)
Jenkins v. Hale 190 P.3d 175 Ariz. 2008
Jenkins v. Hale 190 P.3d 175 Ariz. 2008
“[T]he purpose for requiring the address of the petitioner is to afford a convenient method of checking whether [the person signing a petition] is a qualified elector.”
Feldmeier v. Watson 123 P.3d 180 Ariz. 2005
Feldmeier v. Watson 123 P.3d 180 Ariz. 2005
overruled, in part, -61 (1947).
Pacuilla v. Cochise County Board of Supervisors 923 P.2d 833 Ariz. 1996
Pacuilla v. Cochise County Board of Supervisors 923 P.2d 833 Ariz. 1996
State v. Roscoe 912 P.2d 1297 Ariz. 1996
State v. Roscoe 912 P.2d 1297 Ariz. 1996
at 348 , 554 P.2d at 1291 , -17 , -51 (1942)).
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
De Szendeffy v. Threadgill 874 P.2d 1021 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
De Szendeffy v. Threadgill 874 P.2d 1021 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
(substantial compliance is sufficient for initiative petition).
Pioneer Trust Co. v. Pima County 811 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1991
Kromko v. Superior Court 811 P.2d 12 Ariz. 1991
Kromko v. Superior Court 811 P.2d 12 Ariz. 1991
overruled on other grounds, Renck, 66 Ariz. at 327 , 187 P.2d at 660-61
Pioneer Trust Co. v. Pima County 811 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1991
See Queen Creek, , (constitutional reservation of initiative and referendum powers establishes electorate as coordinate source of legislation with constituted legislative bodies); , (question of whether Arizona’s constitution should reserve powers of initiative and referendum was “burning issue”; opinion of delegates who adopted and signed constitution was that powers of initiative and referendum were among the constitution’s most important provisions), overruled t
Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc. v. Coconino County 766 P.2d 83 Ariz. 1988
Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc. v. Coconino County 766 P.2d 83 Ariz. 1988
Another case, , (overruled on other grounds, , , ), dealt with the precise question presented here, holding that a voter who is registered in one precinct and who moves to another precinct during
Brousseau v. Fitzgerald 675 P.2d 713 Ariz. 1984
Brousseau v. Fitzgerald 675 P.2d 713 Ariz. 1984
Save Our Public Lands Coalition v. Stover 662 P.2d 136 Ariz. 1983
Save Our Public Lands Coalition v. Stover 662 P.2d 136 Ariz. 1983
42 Am.Jur.2d Initiative and Referendum § 54 (1969).
Clark v. PIMA CTY. BD. OF SUPERVISORS 624 P.2d 871 Ariz. 1981
Clark v. PIMA CTY. BD. OF SUPERVISORS 624 P.2d 871 Ariz. 1981
: "The ultimate substantive question obviously is whether the signer is in all respects a qualified elector, and all the requirements in regard to residence, date of signing, verification and the like are to assist interested parties to ascertain this fact.
Johnson v. Maehling 597 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1979
Johnson v. Maehling 597 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1979
Applying the rule of construing formal requirements liberally in favor of allowing petitions to stand, , we find no error in the trial court’s acceptance of the petitions.
Turley v. Bolin 554 P.2d 1288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Turley v. Bolin 554 P.2d 1288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
1, § 1(1) , the provisions of the Arizona Constitution relating to the reservation by the people of initiative and referendum rights show: “ .
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
( , : “The history of our Constitution and its adoption, to which we have previously referred, shows beyond the possibility of contradiction that the people themselves deliberately and intentionally announced that, by it
Bolin v. Superior Court 449 P.2d 4 Ariz. 1969
Bolin v. Superior Court 449 P.2d 4 Ariz. 1969
While it has been the practice in this State that initiative and referendum actions have been brought against the Secretary of State, and not against the proponents of a measure ( , ; , , 33 A.L.R.2d 1102 ; , .), the facts in the instant case are different from those in previous cases.
Board of Supervisors v. Superior Court 446 P.2d 231 Ariz. 1968
Board of Supervisors v. Superior Court 446 P.2d 231 Ariz. 1968
Ward v. Stevens 344 P.2d 491 Ariz. 1959
Ward v. Stevens 344 P.2d 491 Ariz. 1959
260 P. 435 ; , 180 P. 151 .
Bohannan v. Corporation Commission 313 P.2d 379 Ariz. 1957
Bohannan v. Corporation Commission 313 P.2d 379 Ariz. 1957
and in so doing examine into, ascertain and give effect to the intent and purpose of the framers of the Constitution.