White v. Bateman, No. 7219

CourtSupreme Court of Arizona
Writing for the CourtBERNSTEIN; STRUCKMEYER
Citation89 Ariz. 110,358 P.2d 712
Docket NumberNo. 7219
Decision Date23 January 1961
PartiesLaurence WHITE, Appellant, v. Jay BATEMAN, David C. Davis et al., Appellees, and Coy DeArman, Intervenor.

Page 712

358 P.2d 712
89 Ariz. 110
Laurence WHITE, Appellant,
v.
Jay BATEMAN, David C. Davis et al., Appellees,
and
Coy DeArman, Intervenor.
No. 7219.
Supreme Court of Arizona.
Jan. 23, 1961.

[89 Ariz. 111] Harry Bagnall, Coolidge, for appellant.

Estes D. McBryde, County Atty. of Pinal County, Casa Grande, for appellees.

Powers & Rehnquist, Phoenix, for intervenor.

BERNSTEIN, Vice Chief Justice.

The basic question presented in this appeal is whether the provisions of A.R.S. Title 16, chapter 6, which is entitled 'Nomination Other Than By Primary Election,' apply to a person who has run in the preceding primary election and has been defeated therein.

[89 Ariz. 112]

Page 713

The facts as stipulated to by the parties may be briefly stated as follows: Laurence White (hereinafter referred to as 'appellant') and Coy DeArman (hereinafter called 'intervenor') were both candidates for sheriff of Pinal County in the Democratic Primary held on September 13, 1960. The appellant was nominated in the primary on the Democratic ticket and subsequently, within the time prescribed by law, intervenor secured the placing of his name on the general election ballot by complying with the provisions of A.R.S. Title 16, chapter 6. Upon the canvass by the appellees--Board of Supervisors of Pinal County--intervenor was declared the elected sheriff of Pinal County, Arizona.

On November 17, 1960, appellant filed suit in the Superior Court of Pinal County for an injunction to prevent the Board of Supervisors from issuing a certificate of election to intervenor and for final judgment declaring that placing of the name of intervenor on the ballot be declared illegal, that his subsequent election be declared illegal and that appellant be declared the duly elected sheriff of Pinal County, Arizona, for the term beginning the first Monday in January, 1961. Upon hearing the temporary injunction, the trial court granted intervenor's motion to intervene and dismissed the complaint on motion duly filed. From the order granting the motion to dismiss this appeal was taken. It should be noted that our ruling in Cavender v. Board of Supervisors of Pima County, 85 Ariz. 156, 333 P.2d 967, 969, was relied upon by the Board of Supervisors in placing intervenor's name on the general ballot and by the trial court in dismissing the complaint.

The appellant contends that the provisions of A.R.S. Title 16, chapter 6, are not applicable or available to a person who has been defeated in a primary election to have his name placed on the subsequent general election ballot for the same office for which he ran in the primary election because such action would be violative of the provisions of Article 7, section 10, Constitution of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 practice notes
  • Kayer v. Ryan, No. 09-99027
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • December 18, 2019
    ...its own precedents. There, we wrote:[T]he Arizona Supreme Court has a strong view of stare decisis. The Court wrote in White v. Bateman , 89 Ariz. 110, 358 P.2d 712, 714 (1961), for example, that its prior caselaw "should be adhered to unless the reasons of the prior decisions have ceased t......
  • Mayer Unified School Dist. v. Winkleman, No. 2 CA-CV 2007-0126.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Arizona
    • May 19, 2008
    ...Ariz. 248, 249, 156 P.2d 901, 901 (1945); Grossetta v. Choate, 51 Ariz. 248, 250, 75 P.2d 1031, 1031-32 (1938); see also White v. Bateman, 89 Ariz. 110, 114, 358 P.2d 712, 714 (1962) ("The primary duty of [the supreme court] is to interpret the laws of this state so that the people may know......
  • McKinney v. Ryan, No. 09–99018.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • December 29, 2015
    ...v. Williker, 107 Ariz. 611, 491 P.2d 465, 468 (1971)(referring to "a proper respect for the theory of stare decisis"); White v. Bateman, 89 Ariz. 110, 358 P.2d 712, 714 (1961)(prior case law "should be adhered to unless the reasons of the prior decisions have ceased to exist or the prior de......
  • Derendal v. Griffith, No. CV-04-0037-PR.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arizona
    • January 14, 2005
    ...and having relied on such rights in conducting their affairs should not have them done away with by judicial fiat." White v. Bateman, 89 Ariz. 110, 113, 358 P.2d 712, 713-14 (1961). We have also acknowledged, however, that "the doctrine of stare decisis should not require a slavish adherenc......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
26 cases
  • Kayer v. Ryan, No. 09-99027
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • December 18, 2019
    ...its own precedents. There, we wrote:[T]he Arizona Supreme Court has a strong view of stare decisis. The Court wrote in White v. Bateman , 89 Ariz. 110, 358 P.2d 712, 714 (1961), for example, that its prior caselaw "should be adhered to unless the reasons of the prior decisions have ceased t......
  • Mayer Unified School Dist. v. Winkleman, No. 2 CA-CV 2007-0126.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Arizona
    • May 19, 2008
    ...Ariz. 248, 249, 156 P.2d 901, 901 (1945); Grossetta v. Choate, 51 Ariz. 248, 250, 75 P.2d 1031, 1031-32 (1938); see also White v. Bateman, 89 Ariz. 110, 114, 358 P.2d 712, 714 (1962) ("The primary duty of [the supreme court] is to interpret the laws of this state so that the people may know......
  • McKinney v. Ryan, No. 09–99018.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • December 29, 2015
    ...v. Williker, 107 Ariz. 611, 491 P.2d 465, 468 (1971)(referring to "a proper respect for the theory of stare decisis"); White v. Bateman, 89 Ariz. 110, 358 P.2d 712, 714 (1961)(prior case law "should be adhered to unless the reasons of the prior decisions have ceased to exist or the prior de......
  • Derendal v. Griffith, No. CV-04-0037-PR.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arizona
    • January 14, 2005
    ...and having relied on such rights in conducting their affairs should not have them done away with by judicial fiat." White v. Bateman, 89 Ariz. 110, 113, 358 P.2d 712, 713-14 (1961). We have also acknowledged, however, that "the doctrine of stare decisis should not require a slavish adherenc......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT