State v. Marana Plantations, Inc.
Decision Date | 15 January 1953 |
Docket Number | No. 1033,1033 |
Citation | 252 P.2d 87,75 Ariz. 111 |
Parties | STATE v. MARANA PLANTATIONS, Inc. |
Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Fred O. Wilson, Atty. Gen., and Robert Morrison, County Attorney of Pima County, Tucson, for appellant.
Darnell, Robertson & Holesapple, of Tucson, for appellee.
The State, by and through the county attorney of Pima County, filed a direct information consisting of six counts charging the Marana Plantations, Inc., with violating certain regulations adopted by the State Board of Health pursuant to the provision of Chapter 105, Session Laws 1941. The trial court dismissed the action for the reason that the statute enabling the board to pass the regulation is unconstitutional in that it delegated legislative power to an administrative board and for the further reason that the regulations were unconstitutional in that they were discriminatory and were of a local or special nature.
The source of the board's power to pass the questioned regulations, if any, is to be found in the following provision of Section 6, Chapter 105, 1941 Session Laws of Arizona:
The regulations involved are by their terms made applicable only to agricultural labor camps, and the information charges the violation of regulations Nos. 101 to 106 inclusive which read as follows:
'Regulation 101--Water Supply: Every labor camp shall be provided with a water supply from a source approved by the State Director of Health or the local health department having jurisdiction.
'The water supply shall be of sufficient quantity to provide a minimum of 35 gallons per person per day to the camp site at a rate of two and a half times the average hourly demand, and be of a safe sanitary quality, meeting the standards of the State Department of Health.
'No cross- or back-flow connections with unapproved water supplies or other possible sources of contamination shall be permitted.
'Regulation 104--Housing: The following minimum housing shall be provided:
'The State Director of Health shall have the authority to waive parts of this regulation where health conditions are not impaired.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Southwest Engineering Co. v. Ernst
...to an administrative agency the power to adopt rules and regulations necessary to carry a law into effect. State v. Marana Plantations, 75 Ariz. 111, 114, 252 P.2d 87. In some cases such as zoning and the licensing of professions, the discretion vested is so broad and the limitation so gene......
-
American Greyhound Racing, Inc. v. Hull
...and determine for itself the conditions under which a law should exist and pass the law it thinks appropriate. State v. Marana Plantations, 75 Ariz. 111, 252 P.2d 87, 89 (1953) (emphasis With § 5-601, there are few express conditions imposed by the legislature. The Arizona Supreme Court rec......
-
Bade v. Drachman
...board or agency with no prescribed restraint offends the Constitution as a delegation of legislative power. State v. Marana Plantations, (Inc.,) 75 Ariz. 111, 252 P.2d 87. What the legislature cannot do is to delegate to an administrative body or official not only the power to fix a rate of......
-
Camerena v. Department of Public Welfare
...be unconstitutional. See Southern Pacific Company v. Cochise Cuonty, 92 Ariz. 395, 377 P.2d 770 (1963); and State v. Marana Plantations, Inc., 75 Ariz. 111, 252 P.2d 87 (1953). We do not agree, however, that there is an improper delegation of legislative authority in A.R.S. § 46--292, subse......