Legal Opinion
Town of Wickenburg v. State
Court of Appeals of Arizona
Decided June 14, 1977No. 1 CA-CIV 3268PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
HAIRE, Judge.
This appeal arises from an action for a declaratory judgment that A.R.S. § 38-545 1 , which requires every incorporated city in Arizona to adopt standards of financial disclosure applicable to its public officers, is unconstitutional and invalid because it violates provisions of both the United States and Arizona constitutions. The suit was originally brought by the Town of Wickenburg in its own name. Later the Mayor and members of the Town Council were added as individual plaintiffs.
The trial court decided that A.R.S. § 38-545 was not violative of any rights protected by…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Gomillion v. LightfootSupreme Court of the United States · 1960
- Truax v. CorriganSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
- Hunter v. City of PittsburghSupreme Court of the United States · 1907
- City of Trenton v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Williams v. Mayor of BaltimoreSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Cutter Aviation, Inc. v. Arizona Department of RevenueCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1997
- City of Tucson v. WoodsCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1997
- Airport Properties v. Maricopa CountyCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1999
- State v. HindenCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2010
- Maricopa County v. StateCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1996
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.