Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Allen v. State, 130 P. 1114.

52 citing documents.

CENTER FOR AZ v. AZ SECRETARY OF STATE Ariz. 2026
(recognizing the state’s police power); Aiton v. Bd.
Roundtree v. Page Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Roundtree v. Page Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Az Petition Partners LLC v. Hon. thompson/state 530 P.3d 1144 Ariz. 2023
Az Petition Partners LLC v. Hon. thompson/state 530 P.3d 1144 Ariz. 2023
(“The legislative power of the people is as great as that of the legislature.”); Ariz. Const. art. 4, pt.
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
1, § 1; , 130 P. 1114, 1118 (1913).
Zajac v. City of Casa Grande 102 P.3d 297 Ariz. 2004
Zajac v. City of Casa Grande 102 P.3d 297 Ariz. 2004
P. 1114 (1913), the legislature enacted a statute making it a crime to kill a quail without a license.
Winkle v. City of Tucson 949 P.2d 502 Ariz. 1997
Winkle v. City of Tucson 949 P.2d 502 Ariz. 1997
1, § 1(8); , 130 P. 1114, 1118 (1913) (“[t]he people did not commit to the legislature the whole law-making power of the state, but they especially reserved in themselves the power to initiate and defeat legislation by their votes.”).
McComb v. Superior Court 943 P.2d 878 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Department of Revenue v. Arthur 734 P.2d 98 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Department of Revenue v. Arthur 734 P.2d 98 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
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
Two of them, , , 130 P. 1114 (1913), were not election contests but were cases challenging the validity of particular laws by collaterally attacking the procedures by which the laws came to be voted on by the people.
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
*54 , , , 130 P. 1114 (1913).
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Arizona Corp. Commission 693 P.2d 362 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Arizona Corp. Commission 693 P.2d 362 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
In making this contention the Commission, , 130 P. 1114 (1913), attempts to analogize its constitutionally delegated rate-making function to the legislative process engaged in by the legislative branch of Arizona’s government.
Queen Creek Land & Cattle Corp. v. Yavapai County Board of Supervisors 501 P.2d 391 Ariz. 1972
Queen Creek Land & Cattle Corp. v. Yavapai County Board of Supervisors 501 P.2d 391 Ariz. 1972
130 P. 1114 , 44 L.R.A.,N.S., 468 (1913).
Bolin v. Superior Court 333 P.2d 295 Ariz. 1958
Bolin v. Superior Court 333 P.2d 295 Ariz. 1958
130 P. 1114 , 44 L.R.A.N.S., 468 ; , .
Adams v. Bolin 247 P.2d 617 Ariz. 1952
Adams v. Bolin 247 P.2d 617 Ariz. 1952
“In this state the Legislature and the people constitute the lawmaking power.” , 130 P. 1114, 1118 , 44 L.R.A..N.S., 468.
Tucson Manor, Inc. v. Federal Nat. Mortgage Ass'n 241 P.2d 1126 Ariz. 1952
Tucson Manor, Inc. v. Federal Nat. Mortgage Ass'n 241 P.2d 1126 Ariz. 1952
Defendant on the other hand seeks to invoke the “enrolled bill” rule, , , and insists that it is now too late to question whether the measure was submitted at a proper election or the necessary procedural steps followed in its submission to a vote of the people, , 130 P. 1114 ; , 235 P. 150 ; , .
Dennis v. Jordan 229 P.2d 692 Ariz. 1951
Dennis v. Jordan 229 P.2d 692 Ariz. 1951
In that case we unequivocably invoked “the enrolled Bill rule”, , 130 P. 1114 ; 44 L.R.A.,N.S., 468.
Hernandez v. Frohmiller 204 P.2d 854 Ariz. 1949
Hernandez v. Frohmiller 204 P.2d 854 Ariz. 1949
130 P. 1114 , 44 L.R.A.,N.S., 468; , .
Renck v. Superior Court of Maricopa County 187 P.2d 656 Ariz. 1947
Renck v. Superior Court of Maricopa County 187 P.2d 656 Ariz. 1947
130 P. 1114 , 44 L.R.A.,N.S., 468, and cases therein cited.
Whitman v. Moore 125 P.2d 445 Ariz. 1942
Whitman v. Moore 125 P.2d 445 Ariz. 1942
The matter was brought before this court, and it was urged that it was impossible *217 to check the petitions before the general election and that if the measure was placed upon the ballot and approved by the qualified electors, , 130 Pac.
Kerby v. Griffin 62 P.2d 1131 Ariz. 1936
Kerby v. Griffin 62 P.2d 1131 Ariz. 1936
Hudson v. Cummard 33 P.2d 591 Ariz. 1934
Hudson v. Cummard 33 P.2d 591 Ariz. 1934
Cox v. Stults Eagle Drug Co. 21 P.2d 914 Ariz. 1933
Cox v. Stults Eagle Drug Co. 21 P.2d 914 Ariz. 1933
Barth v. White 14 P.2d 743 Ariz. 1932
Barth v. White 14 P.2d 743 Ariz. 1932
McLoughlin v. City of Prescott 6 P.2d 50 Ariz. 1931
McLoughlin v. City of Prescott 6 P.2d 50 Ariz. 1931
44 L. R. A. (N. S.) 468, 130 Pac.
Abbey v. Green 235 P. 150 Ariz. 1925
Abbey v. Green 235 P. 150 Ariz. 1925
That, while a sufficient petition was undoubtedly necessary, yet the question lay deeper than that; that the pregnant inquiry was what body was to settle the matter finally; that after an election had been held this court was impelled to the conclusion that the decision of the board was final.” , 44 L. R. A. (N. S.) 468, 130 Pac.
Clark v. Boyce 185 P. 136 Ariz. 1919
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Carrow 156 P. 965 Ariz. 1916