Legal Opinion

Hancock v. Bisnar

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided April 21, 2006No. CV-05-0381-AP/ELPublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

HURWITZ, Justice.

¶ 1 This is an election contest challenging the qualifications of three individuals elected as directors of the Mohave Valley Irrigation and Drainage District (“MVIDD” or “District”) in a recall election. We hold that the challenged directors are not qualified to serve under the statutes governing irrigation districts.

I

¶ 2 MVIDD is a political subdivision of the state and a municipal corporation. See Ariz. Const. art. 13, § 7; Ariz.Rev.Stat. (“A.R.S.”) § 48-2901 (2005). The District contains 21,-648 acres of land, of which 3273 are agricultural. At the time of the…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Ball v. JamesSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  2. State v. HickmanArizona Supreme Court · 2003
  3. In re Organization & of the Bonds of the Central Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
  4. Arizona Podiatry Ass'n v. Director of InsuranceArizona Supreme Court · 1966
  5. Derendal v. GriffithArizona Supreme Court · 2005

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. State v. PayneCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2009
  2. Fleischman v. Protect Our CityArizona Supreme Court · 2007
  3. Arizona Department of Administration v. CoxCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2009
  4. County of Cochise v. FariaCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2009
  5. Queen Creek Summit, LLC v. DavisCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2008

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API