State ex rel. Stidham v. Kalil
This text of 339 P.2d 396 (State ex rel. Stidham v. Kalil) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Arizona Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
339 P.2d 396, 85 Ariz. 365, 1959 Ariz. LEXIS 221, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-stidham-v-kalil-ariz-1959.