Legal Opinion · Dissent

Ward v. Frohmiller

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided March 18, 1940No. Civil No. 4237Published

1Dissent

ROSS, C. J.,

Dissenting. — I do not concur. It seems to me that it is necessary to look into chapter 69, which creates the State Department of Social Security and Welfare, and see what its provisions are concerning travel and other expenses of board members and employees. Justice LOCKWOOD quotes a portion of subdivision (g) of section 7 of the act and concludes therefrom that the petitioner should have the relief he has asked for. Chapter 69 creates a new agency of state government. Its general aim is to provide for those unfortunate persons in Arizona not able, on account of age, or…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. M'culloch v. State of MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1819
  2. White v. MooreArizona Supreme Court · 1935
  3. Yavapai County v. O'NeillArizona Supreme Court · 1892
  4. Conrad v. County of MaricopaArizona Supreme Court · 1932
  5. Austin v. BarrettArizona Supreme Court · 1932

4 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