Hancock v. Bisnar
Arizona Supreme Court
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
- Ball v. JamesSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- State v. HickmanArizona Supreme Court · 2003
- In re Organization & of the Bonds of the Central Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- Arizona Podiatry Ass'n v. Director of InsuranceArizona Supreme Court · 1966
- Derendal v. GriffithArizona Supreme Court · 2005
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- State v. PayneCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2009
- Fleischman v. Protect Our CityArizona Supreme Court · 2007
- Arizona Department of Administration v. CoxCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2009
- County of Cochise v. FariaCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2009
- Queen Creek Summit, LLC v. DavisCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2008
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.