Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Valley Nat. Bank of Phoenix v. Glover, 159 P.2d 292.

83 citing documents.

Knight v. Fontes Ariz. 2025
Knight v. Fontes Ariz. 2025
v. Glover, –55 (1945) (“The [E]qual [P]rotection [C]lauses of the 14th Amendment and the [S]tate [C]onstitution have for all practical purposes the same effect.”); see also Chavez, 222 Ariz. at 320 ¶ 35; Ariz. Minority Coal.
Vangilder v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Vangilder v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Anderson v. Prescott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Anderson v. Prescott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Vong v. Aune 328 P.3d 1057 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Vong v. Aune 328 P.3d 1057 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
v. Glover, (“The equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment and the state constitution have for all practical purposes the same effect.”).
Coleman v. City of Mesa 284 P.3d 863 Ariz. 2012
Coleman v. City of Mesa 284 P.3d 863 Ariz. 2012
v. Glover, -99 (1945) (discussing due process under Arizona Constitution).
Arizona Minority Coalition for Fair Redistricting v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission 121 P.3d 843 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Arizona Minority Coalition for Fair Redistricting v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission 121 P.3d 843 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State v. Berger 103 P.3d 298 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Berger 103 P.3d 298 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
*379 ¶7 The state and federal equal-protection guarantees “have for all practical purposes the same effect[,]” , and Berger does not contend otherwise.
Simat Corp. v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System 56 P.3d 28 Ariz. 2002
Martin v. Reinstein 987 P.2d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Martin v. Reinstein 987 P.2d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
* * * Inequality, to have the effect of invalidating a law, “must be arbitrary, unreasonable, oppressive, and not properly within the wide field of choice allowed to the legislature.* * * ” Valley Nat’l
Goodman v. Samaritan Health System 990 P.2d 1061 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Goodman v. Samaritan Health System 990 P.2d 1061 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Westin Tucson Hotel Co. v. State Department of Revenue 936 P.2d 183 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Westin Tucson Hotel Co. v. State Department of Revenue 936 P.2d 183 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
(stating that both “the federal and state constitutions require equal assessment of taxes.” (citation omitted)).
State v. Nguyen 912 P.2d 1380 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Nguyen 912 P.2d 1380 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
“The equal protection clauses of the state and federal constitutions have the same effect and generally require that all persons subject to state legislation shall be treated alike under similar circumstances.” , ( , ).
Schuff Steel v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZ. 891 P.2d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Schuff Steel v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZ. 891 P.2d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Crerand v. State 859 P.2d 772 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Crerand v. State 859 P.2d 772 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Republic Investment Fund I v. Town of Surprise 800 P.2d 1251 Ariz. 1990
Republic Investment Fund I v. Town of Surprise 800 P.2d 1251 Ariz. 1990
2, § 19(20), the legislature, not the courts, is the sole judge of whether a general law can be made applicable, citing Valley Nat’l , Prescott v. O’Sullivan
Olson v. Walker 781 P.2d 1015 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Olson v. Walker 781 P.2d 1015 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
at 237 , 714 P.2d at 407 (emphasis added) (quoting Valley Nat’l , -99 (1945)).
For Deannexation v. City of Goodyear 773 P.2d 1026 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
For Deannexation v. City of Goodyear 773 P.2d 1026 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
petitioners contend that when a court is faced with a challenge under subsection 20 of Ariz. Const, art. IV, pt.
Large v. Superior Court 714 P.2d 399 Ariz. 1986
Large v. Superior Court 714 P.2d 399 Ariz. 1986
: Due process, when applied to substantive rights, is interpreted to mean the state is without right to deprive a person of life, liberty or property by an act that has no reasonable relation to any proper governmental purpose, or which is so far beyond the necessity of the case as to be an arbitr
Arizona Farmworkers Union v. Agricultural Employment Relations Board 712 P.2d 960 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Arizona Farmworkers Union v. Agricultural Employment Relations Board 712 P.2d 960 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
(“The equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment and the state constitution have for all practical purposes the same effect.”).
Toto v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 698 P.2d 753 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Toto v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 698 P.2d 753 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Baseline Liquors v. Circle K Corp. 630 P.2d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Baseline Liquors v. Circle K Corp. 630 P.2d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
682 , , (equal protection clauses of the federal and state constitutions have the same effect).
J. C. Penney Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 610 P.2d 471 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
J. C. Penney Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 610 P.2d 471 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. J-86843 608 P.2d 804 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. J-86843 608 P.2d 804 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
4 (1913); Johnson v. Morris, 87 Wash.2d 922
Landgraff v. Wagner 546 P.2d 26 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Landgraff v. Wagner 546 P.2d 26 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Schrey v. Allison Steel Mfg.
Babbitt v. Asta 545 P.2d 58 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Babbitt v. Asta 545 P.2d 58 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Art. 2, § 13 and the Equal Protection Clause have the same effect for all practical purposes, , Edwards v. Alhambra Elementary School Dist.
Stanley v. Stanley 541 P.2d 382 Ariz. 1975