Legal Opinion

Holdren v. Peterson

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided October 3, 1938No. Civil No. 4012PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLockwood, J.

Oris Holdren, hereinafter called plaintiff, brought suit against C. Warren Peterson, John A. Foote, and George Frye, as members of the Board of Supervisors of Maricopa County, hereinafter called the supervisors, and the Automatic Voting Machine Corporation, a corporation, hereinafter called the company. The complaint alleges, in substance, as follows: That the supervisors on the 17th day of March, 1937, declared their intention of accepting from the company the title to certain voting machines, by an instrument which reads, so far as material to this case, as follows:

“Bill of Sale.
“Whereas,…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Thornton v. WynnSupreme Court of the United States · 1827
  2. Bank of Lowell v. CoxArizona Supreme Court · 1929
  3. American-La France & Foamite Corp. v. City of PhoenixArizona Supreme Court · 1936
  4. Automatic Voting MacHine Corp. v. County of MaricopaArizona Supreme Court · 1937
  5. Commercial Securities Corp. Consolidated v. Babbitt Motor Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1930

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Fleming v. Pima CountyArizona Supreme Court · 1984
  2. Maricopa County v. BiaettCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1974
  3. C.I.T. Corporation v. SeaneyArizona Supreme Court · 1938
  4. Mordka v. Mordka Enterprises, Inc.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1984
  5. Opinion No. (1977), Nebraska Attorney General Reports1977

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API