Legal Opinion

Randolph v. Groscost

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided December 17, 1999No. CV-99-0054-SAPublishedCited by 29 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION.

McGregor, justice.

i.

¶ 1 In November 1998, the Commission on Salaries for Elective State Officers (the Commission) recommended, and Arizona’s electorate approved, Proposition 302, which raised legislative salaries to $24,000 per year and purported to change the method for setting legislators’ per diem reimbursements. This case presents two related issues: (1) did the Commission exceed its authority when it recommended changes in the legislative per diem payments; and (2) if so, can we sever the per diem provision from the salary provision, or must we declare Proposition 302 invalid as…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Collins v. RileyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
  2. State v. PrentissArizona Supreme Court · 1989
  3. Rios v. SymingtonArizona Supreme Court · 1992
  4. Earhart v. FrohmillerArizona Supreme Court · 1947
  5. Eberle v. NielsonIdaho Supreme Court · 1957

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

3Cited by29 opinions

  1. Calik v. KongableArizona Supreme Court · 1999
  2. City of Tempe v. Outdoor Systems, Inc.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2001
  3. League of Ariz. Cities and Towns v. MartinArizona Supreme Court · 2009
  4. Citizens Clean Elections Commission v. MyersArizona Supreme Court · 2000
  5. Karen Fann v. State of ArizonaArizona Supreme Court · 2021

24 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