State ex rel. Stidham v. Kalil

339 P.2d 396, 85 Ariz. 365, 1959 Ariz. LEXIS 221
Arizona Supreme Court·Decided May 21, 1959·No. No. 6872·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The sole question presented by this appeal is whether A.R.S. § 11-213, as amended by the 1959 Legislature, is constitutional, i. e., may the Legislature validly empower the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, an appointive statutory official— rather than the County Recorder or some other elected official — to cast a vote in filling a vacancy on that Board ? It is our unanimous considered opinion that it can. Inasmuch as we perceive no express or implied constitutional impediment to this enactment, we hold the Legislature had plenary power to make such changes as it saw fit. The wisdom of their action is no concern of this court.

Arlo Gooch, the intervenor-appellant, has no standing before us and his appeal is therefore dismissed.

Judgment affirmed.

STRUCKMEYER, J., disqualified.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

State ex rel. Stidham v. Kalil, 339 P.2d 396, 85 Ariz. 365, 1959 Ariz. LEXIS 221 (Ark. 1959).

339 P.2d 396 (State ex rel. Stidham v. Kalil) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Williams-Carter v. Maricopa County
903 P.2d 646 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1995)