Holmes v. Osborn
Decision Date | 16 July 1941 |
Docket Number | Civil 4403 |
Citation | 57 Ariz. 522,115 P.2d 775 |
Parties | L. C. HOLMES and LYNN LOCKHART, Members of the Industrial Commission of Arizona, Petitioners, v. SIDNEY P. OSBORN, as Governor of the State of Arizona, Respondent |
Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Original proceeding in Certiorari by petitioners for a review of respondent's action in removing them from office. Order of removal annulled.
Mr George M. Hill, Mr. Mark Wilmer and Mr. Charles L. Strouss, for Petitioners.
Mr. Joe Conway, Attorney General, and Mr. W. E. Polley, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent, Mr. Burt H. Clingan, of Counsel.
Mr. Jacob Morgan, Amici Curiae.
The petitioners instituted this proceeding by certiorari against the respondent, Governor of Arizona, for the purpose of testing the legality of their removal by him as members of the Industrial Commission of Arizona.
Petitioner Holmes was appointed to such office in March, 1933, by the then governor, Honorable B. B. Moeur, and at the expiration of such term was reappointed, for the term beginning January 8, 1940, by the then governor, Honorable R. T. Jones, with the advice of the senate, and was acting under this last appointment when the respondent ordered his removal therefrom.
Petitioner Lockhart was appointed in 1939, also by Governor Jones, with the advice of the senate, to fill out a term which began January 9, 1938, and will end January 8, 1944, and was acting under such appointment when the respondent ordered his removal.
The respondent was inducted into office on January 6, 1941. On February 17 he formally notified the petitioners and E. T. Houston, the third member of the Industrial Commission (appointed by Governor Jones in 1940, and confirmed by the senate, to fill a vacancy caused by the death of Honorable Sam Proctor), that two complaints had been filed with him charging all of them with inefficiency, neglect of duty, malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance in office and engaging in occupations and businesses other than their duties as industrial commissioners, and petitioning for their removal from office; appointed February 23 as the date he would hear evidence for and against such charges, and served copies of such complaints upon the petitioners and the said Houston, which complaints are as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
PHH Corp. v. Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau
...(finding "neglect of duty" when a trustee failed to perform his duty to invest the trust funds he had received); Holmes v. Osborn , 57 Ariz. 522, 115 P.2d 775, 783 (1941) (defining "neglect of duty" as equivalent to "nonfeasance," which means the "substantial failure to perform duty" (quoti......
-
Campbell v. Department of Civil Service
...such as an impeachment proceeding. See N.J.Const., Art. VII, § III, par, 1; cf. N.J.Const., Art. V, § IV, par. 5; Holmes v. Osborn, 57 Ariz. 522, 115 P.2d 775 (1941). In Burkley v. Atlantic City, an appeal was taken to the county court from an award rendered in the petitioner's favor by Mr.......
-
Arizona Indep. Redistricting Comm'n v. Brewer, CV–11–0313–SA.
...including the governor); Rios v. Symington, 172 Ariz. 3, 5, 833 P.2d 20, 22 (1992) (same); see also Holmes v. Osborn, 57 Ariz. 522, 527, 540–41, 115 P.2d 775, 778, 783–84 (1941) (reviewing in certiorari proceeding gubernatorial removal of Industrial Commissioners and noting that the governo......
-
Industrial Commission of Ariz. v. J. & J. Const. Co.
...this jurisdiction involving 'orders' entered by the commission, or its right to enter same, include the excellent case of Holmes v. Osborn, 57 Ariz. 522, 115 P.2d 775; and Industrial Commission v. Meddock, supra; Gene Autry Productions v. Industrial Commission, 67 Ariz. 290, 195 P.2d 143; H......