Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Gherna v. State, 146 P. 494.

65 citing documents.

State ex rel. Montgomery v. Mathis 290 P.3d 1226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Mathis 290 P.3d 1226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
itutional purpose, then the legislation may stand.” Direct Sellers Ass’n v. McBrayer, , see also Roberts, 71 Ariz. at 69 , 223 P.2d at 814 (“The fact that a constitutional provision is self-executing does not necessarily exhaust legislative power on the subject but such legislation must be in harmony with the spirit of the constitution.”); , 146 P. 494, 498 (1915) (“In eases where a provision is self-executing, legislation may still be desirable, by way of providing a more specific and convenien
State Ex Rel. Berger v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN AND FOR COUNTY OF MARICOPA 476 P.2d 666 Ariz. 1970
State Ex Rel. Berger v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN AND FOR COUNTY OF MARICOPA 476 P.2d 666 Ariz. 1970
146 P. 494 ; Alabam’s , 242 P. 658 ; , .
Board of Supervisors, Pima County v. Robinson 457 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Board of Supervisors, Pima County v. Robinson 457 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Alabam’s , 242 P. 658 ; , 194 P. 1101 ; , 146 P. 494 .” 101 Ariz., at 599 , 422 P.2d, at 715 .
Selective Life Insurance v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States 422 P.2d 710 Ariz. 1967
Selective Life Insurance v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States 422 P.2d 710 Ariz. 1967
Alabam’s , 242 P. 658 ; , 194 P. 1101 ; , 146 P. 494 .
Salinas v. Kahn 407 P.2d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Salinas v. Kahn 407 P.2d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
We believe the following to be a proper statement of this law: “Unless a person’s rights are directly involved, such questions [unconstitutionality] must necessarily be postponed, until they are met with upon the highway of adjudication, unless the unconstitutional feature, if it exists, is of such a character as to render the entire act void.” (Emphasis added) , 146 P. 494, 500 (1915).
Hooper v. Duncan 389 P.2d 706 Ariz. 1964
Hooper v. Duncan 389 P.2d 706 Ariz. 1964
146 P. 494 (1915) set forth the right of the state to regulate the business of selling intoxicating liquors to the point of absolute prohibition.
Elfbrandt v. Russell 381 P.2d 554 Ariz. 1963
Elfbrandt v. Russell 381 P.2d 554 Ariz. 1963
What we have said here would ordinarily dispose of this action for we do not entertain attacks on the constitutionality of a statute by those whose rights have not in some way been actually or injuriously affected or directly involved, , 146 P. 494 , Anno.Cas.l916D 94.
McCune v. City of Phoenix 317 P.2d 537 Ariz. 1957
McCune v. City of Phoenix 317 P.2d 537 Ariz. 1957
146 P. 494 ; Alabam’s , 242 P. 658 ; , .
Southwest Engineering Co. v. Ernst 291 P.2d 764 Ariz. 1955
Southwest Engineering Co. v. Ernst 291 P.2d 764 Ariz. 1955
146 P. 494 , Ann.Cas.1916D, 94; cf. United States v. Petrillo, 332 U.S. 1 , 67 S.Ct.
State v. Benton 276 P.2d 516 Ariz. 1954
State v. Benton 276 P.2d 516 Ariz. 1954
Hudson v. Kelly 263 P.2d 362 Ariz. 1953
Hudson v. Kelly 263 P.2d 362 Ariz. 1953
As late as March 30, 1953, , , we said, referring to previous holdings of the court: “ * * * we have said that we would not declare a legislative act unconstitutional unless satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of its unconstitutionality, * * In the early case of Gherna v. State, 1915, , 146 P. 494, 501 , wherein an attack was made on the constitutionality of a law, this court made the following pronouncement with reference to the rule of construction to be followed: “A pronouncement of the inval
State v. Marana Plantations, Inc. 252 P.2d 87 Ariz. 1953
State v. Marana Plantations, Inc. 252 P.2d 87 Ariz. 1953
Adams v. Bolin 247 P.2d 617 Ariz. 1952
Adams v. Bolin 247 P.2d 617 Ariz. 1952
125 P. 884 ; , 146 P. 494 ; Ann.Cas.1916D, 94; , .
State v. Coursey 225 P.2d 713 Ariz. 1950
State v. Coursey 225 P.2d 713 Ariz. 1950
Roberts v. Spray 223 P.2d 808 Ariz. 1950
Roberts v. Spray 223 P.2d 808 Ariz. 1950
125 P. 884 ; , 185 P. 136 ; , 146 P. 494 ; American Federation of Labor v. American Sash & Door Co., , .
State v. Allred 195 P.2d 163 Ariz. 1948
State v. Allred 195 P.2d 163 Ariz. 1948
on the administration of the laws providing for the assessment, levy and collection of taxes, and would create a condition of uncertainty with respect .to what property was available for the purpose of taxation within the respective political subdivisions which have the power to levy and collect taxes for the maintenance of local government.” , 146 P. 494 , Ann.Cas.
Stanton v. Superior Court of Arizona 103 P.2d 952 Ariz. 1940
Stanton v. Superior Court of Arizona 103 P.2d 952 Ariz. 1940
City of Glendale v. Betty 43 P.2d 206 Ariz. 1935
City of Glendale v. Betty 43 P.2d 206 Ariz. 1935
Maricopa County Municipal Water Conservation District Number One v. La Prade 40 P.2d 94 Ariz. 1935
Maricopa County Municipal Water Conservation District Number One v. La Prade 40 P.2d 94 Ariz. 1935
State Ex Rel. La Prade v. Cox 30 P.2d 825 Ariz. 1934
State Ex Rel. La Prade v. Cox 30 P.2d 825 Ariz. 1934
262 , 5 L. Ed. 257 ; , 146 Pac.
State Tax Commission v. Board of Supervisors 29 P.2d 733 Ariz. 1934
State Tax Commission v. Board of Supervisors 29 P.2d 733 Ariz. 1934
Even though this be true appellee is not in a position to assert it, because it is the “unquestioned rule,” , 146 Pac.
State v. Roseberry 289 P. 515 Ariz. 1930
State v. Roseberry 289 P. 515 Ariz. 1930
It is not sufficient that the statute is unconstitutional as to other persons or classes of persons; it must affirmatively appear that the person attacking the statute comes within the class of persons affected by it.” See, also, , Ann. Cas.
Herndon v. Hammons 262 P. 620 Ariz. 1927
Herndon v. Hammons 262 P. 620 Ariz. 1927
Marburg v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 , 2 L. Ed. 60 ; , Ann. Cas.
Burnside v. Douglas School District No. 27 261 P. 629 Ariz. 1927
Burnside v. Douglas School District No. 27 261 P. 629 Ariz. 1927
Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 , 2 L. Ed. 60 ; , Ann. Cas.
Kirby v. Kirby 206 P. 405 Ariz. 1922
Kirby v. Kirby 206 P. 405 Ariz. 1922