Legal Opinion
City of Tucson v. State
Court of Appeals of Arizona
Decided October 14, 1997No. 2 CA-CV 97-0055PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
HOWARD, Judge.
Section 16-204, A.R.S., enacted in 1996, restricts elections held by political subdivisions to four specified dates during the year. 1 The City of Tucson sued the State of Arizona, claiming that the statute is invalid as applied to the City because it conflicts with Chapter XVI of the Tucson City Charter. The trial court ruled in favor of the City, holding that the consolidated election schedule of § 16-204 does not apply to the City and that the City Charter governs city elections. In this appeal from that ruling, we review de novo the trial court’s interpretation of the…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Hayes v. Continental InsuranceArizona Supreme Court · 1994
- City of Mesa v. KillingsworthArizona Supreme Court · 1964
- Jett v. City of TucsonArizona Supreme Court · 1994
- Axberg v. City of LincolnNebraska Supreme Court · 1942
- Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest v. HassellCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1992
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- State Ex Rel Brnovich v. City of tucson/dewitArizona Supreme Court · 2017
- City of Casa Grande v. Arizona Water Co.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2001
- City of Tucson v. StateArizona Supreme Court · 2012
- Redelsperger v. City of AvondaleCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2004
- City of Tucson v. Consumers for Retail ChoiceCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2000
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.