Legal Opinion

Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community v. Hull

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided October 7, 1997No. CV-97-0090-SAPublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

FELDMAN, Justice.

In a special action, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community (the Tribe) requested relief — what was formerly called a writ of mandamus — requiring Governor J. Fife Symington to sign a “standard gaming compact” upon the request of the Tribe as required by Proposition 201, adopted by initiative in the 1996 election and codified as A.R.S. § 5-601.01. Governor Symington had refused to sign such a compact. We have *99jurisdiction under article VI, § 5(4) of the Arizona Constitution and Rules 1(a), 2(a)(1), and 7(b), Ariz.R.P.Spec.Act.

After the ease was briefed, argued,…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Seminole Tribe of Florida v. FloridaSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
  2. State Ex Rel. Clark v. JohnsonNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1995
  3. State Ex Rel. Stephan v. FinneySupreme Court of Kansas · 1992
  4. Rios v. SymingtonArizona Supreme Court · 1992
  5. State Compensation Fund v. SymingtonArizona Supreme Court · 1993

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Sears v. HullArizona Supreme Court · 1998
  2. Valencia Energy Co. v. Arizona Department of RevenueArizona Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Ruiz v. HullArizona Supreme Court · 1998
  4. American Greyhound Racing, Inc. v. HullCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
  5. American Greyhound Racing, Inc. v. HullDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2001

7 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