David Stambaugh v. Mark Killian
Arizona Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
*509JUSTICE BRUTINEL,
opinion of the Court:
¶ 1 Arizona Revised Statute § 3-1261 (B) provides that no two brands of the same design or figure shall be adopted or recorded. Nonetheless, the Arizona Department of Agriculture (“Department”) allowed Eureka Springs to record a “bar seven” brand (—7), even though it was identical to a previously recorded brand owned by David Stambaugh, because it was placed on a different location on the animals. We hold that the plain language of the statute precludes the Department from recording “two brands of the same design or figure” regardless of their location.
I.…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- State v. SweetArizona Supreme Court · 1985
- City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc.Arizona Supreme Court · 2005
- State v. ChristianArizona Supreme Court · 2003
- State of Arizona v. Armando Pena, Jr.Arizona Supreme Court · 2014
- City of Flagstaff v. MangumArizona Supreme Court · 1990
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by86 opinions
- City of Surprise v. acc/lake PleasantArizona Supreme Court · 2019
- State v. MendozaCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2019
- Arizona Alliance for Retired Americans v. Kristin K. MayesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2024
- Anthony Garcia v. Hon. butler/stateArizona Supreme Court · 2021
- In Re: Steven R. Drummond, Mary A. DrummondArizona Supreme Court · 2024
81 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.