Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite County of Santa Cruz v. Barnes, 76 P. 621.

25 citing documents.

Romley v. Daughton 241 P.3d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Romley v. Daughton 241 P.3d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
§ 11-251(14), the Board has the authority to “[d]i-rect and control the prosecution and defense of all actions to which the county is a party, and compromise them.” , 76 P. 621, 623 (1904), the Territorial Supreme Court held that, because of this authority, the board has the power to hire outside counsel for litigation matters when the county attorney (called “district attorney” then) has consented to the hiring: It is and should be the law that the supervisors of the county
BD. OF SUP'RS OF MARICOPA COUNTY v. Woodall 586 P.2d 628 Ariz. 1978
Board of Supervisors v. Woodall 586 P.2d 628 Ariz. 1978
BD. OF SUP'RS OF MARICOPA COUNTY v. Woodall 586 P.2d 628 Ariz. 1978
76 P. 621 (1904), the supervisors of Santa Cruz County hired a law firm to conduct certain civil litigation on behalf of the county.
Board of Supervisors v. Woodall 586 P.2d 628 Ariz. 1978
76 P. 621 (1904), the supervisors of Santa Cruz County hired a law firm to conduct certain civil litigation on behalf of the county.
Maricopa County v. Biaett 518 P.2d 1003 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Maricopa County v. Biaett 518 P.2d 1003 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Direct and control the prosecution and defense of all actions to which the county is a party, and compromise them.” , 76 P. 621 (1904), stated: “While the power (to employ attorneys) is not expressly conferred, yet it is obviously embraced in the general power ‘to control the prosecution and defense of all suits to which the county is a party,’ which we construe to mean not only suits to which she is a party upon the record, bu
Kerby v. State Ex Rel. Frohmiller 157 P.2d 698 Ariz. 1945
Kerby v. State Ex Rel. Frohmiller 157 P.2d 698 Ariz. 1945
Ward v. Frohmiller 100 P.2d 167 Ariz. 1940
Maricopa County v. Norris 66 P.2d 258 Ariz. 1937
Maricopa County v. Norris 66 P.2d 258 Ariz. 1937
Pima County v. Anklam 61 P.2d 172 Ariz. 1936
Pima County v. Anklam 61 P.2d 172 Ariz. 1936
Austin v. Barrett 16 P.2d 12 Ariz. 1932
Austin v. Barrett 16 P.2d 12 Ariz. 1932
Bone v. Bowen 185 P. 133 Ariz. 1919
Bone v. Bowen 185 P. 133 Ariz. 1919
Pinal County v. Nicholas 179 P. 650 Ariz. 1919
Pinal County v. Nicholas 179 P. 650 Ariz. 1919
express or implied, from which it arises, which itself finds authority of law.” , 76 Pac.
Territory of Arizona ex rel. Clark v. Gaines 93 P. 281 Ariz. 1908
Territory of Arizona ex rel. Clark v. Gaines 93 P. 281 Ariz. 1908
Rouse v. Pima County 85 P. 1075 Ariz. 1906
Rouse v. Pima County 85 P. 1075 Ariz. 1906
The record in this case discloses: “That said plaintiff at the request of said board of supervisors of defendant county, made up the duplicate assessment-roll according to law, and said roll was accepted by the board of supervisors of said Pima County, and was used as such.” , 76 Pac.