Legal Opinion
Sines v. Holden
Arizona Supreme Court
Decided March 8, 1961No. 6685PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BERNSTEIN, Vice Chief Justice.
This is an action of mandamus to compel the personnel director of the State Highway Department to process an application for refund of retirement funds. The facts are:
Crosby G. Holden (hereinafter called “petitioner”) was employed by the State of Arizona in the State Highway Department. During such employment he made regular contributions from his salary to the Arizona State Retirement System Fund pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 38-745, 38-748.
During the course of his employment, it was asserted in a formal complaint by an officer of the Highway Department that the…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Public Util. Comm'n of Ohio v. United Fuel Gas Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1943
- United States Ex Rel. Greathouse v. DernSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
- United States Ex Rel. Turner v. FisherSupreme Court of the United States · 1911
- City of Chicago v. Union Stock Yards & Transit Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1896
- Neubeck v. NeubeckSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1922
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Brewer v. BurnsArizona Supreme Court · 2009
- Smith v. NeelyArizona Supreme Court · 1963
- White Mountain Health Center, Inc. v. Maricopa CountyCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2016
- State v. ValenzuelaArizona Supreme Court · 1973
- Daystar Investments, L.L.C. v. Maricopa County TreasurerCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2004
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.