Saunders v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR CTY. OF MARICOPA
Arizona Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
HOLOHAN, Justice.
Petitioners seek intervention in a lawsuit filed by the City of Nogales and two of its taxpayers, which lawsuit sought to have the act creating the Public Safety Personnel Retirement System declared unconstitutional. All parties to the original action objected to the intervention of petitioners, and the trial court denied intervention. The sole question presented here is whether petitioners should have been allowed to intervene. In view of the importance of the issues raised in the main action and the need for prompt resolution of the question of intervention we accepted…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Sierra Club v. MortonSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Jenney v. Arizona Express, Inc.Arizona Supreme Court · 1961
- Martin v. Travelers Indemnity Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1971
- Roosevelt v. Beau Monde Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1963
- Pintek v. Superior CourtArizona Supreme Court · 1954
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Rochlin v. StateArizona Supreme Court · 1975
- Bechtel v. Rose in and for Maricopa CountyArizona Supreme Court · 1986
- Heritage v. WeinbergCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2019
- State ex rel. Napolitano v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.Arizona Supreme Court · 2000