A. If the county recorder fails to comply with the provisions of section 19-208.02, any elector may apply, within ten calendar days after such refusal, to the superior court for a writ of mandamus to compel him to do so. If the court finds that the county recorder has not complied with the provisions of section 19-208.02, the court shall issue an order for the county recorder to comply.
B. If an elector wishes to challenge the number of signatures certified by the county recorder under the provisions of section 19-208.02, he shall, within ten calendar days after the receiving officer has notified the governor and the county recorders of the number of certified signatures received by him, commence an action in the superior court for a determination thereon. The action shall be advanced on the calendar and heard and decided by the court as soon as possible. Either party may appeal to the supreme court within ten calendar days after judgment.
C. An action filed in the superior court under the provisions of this section against a county recorder shall be filed in the county of such county recorder, except that when any such action involves more than one county recorder such action shall be filed in Maricopa county.
Notes of Decisions
Morales v. archibald/phoenix Urban Proj./bowers/fann, 439 P.3d 1179 (Ariz. 2019).
· cites it 12× “¶4 The Committee moved to dismiss, arguing that Morales lacked a statutory cause of action, as the sole statute authorizing an elector's challenge to recall petitions is A.R.S. § 19-208.04, which only allows challenges to "the number of signatures certified by the county…”
Pointe Resorts, Inc. v. Culbertson, 761 P.2d 1041 (Ariz. 1988).
· cites it 2× “03(A) (ten days to seek mandamus against Secretary of State’s refusal to certify); § 19-122(C) (ten days to appeal to Supreme Court on petition ' sufficiency); § 19-208.04(A) (ten days to seek mandamus against recorder on recall certifications); and § 19-208.”
Johnson v. Maehling, 597 P.2d 1 (Ariz. 1979).
· cites it 2× “The *17 case was brought on direct appeal to this court pursuant to A.R.S. § 19-208.04(B). We denied relief to the appellants in an order issued May 9, 1978 with a notation that a formal opinion would follow.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 19-208.04(A) — 1 case
Pointe Resorts, Inc. v. Culbertson, 761 P.2d 1041 (Ariz. 1988).
“03(A) (ten days to seek mandamus against Secretary of State’s refusal to certify); § 19-122(C) (ten days to appeal to Supreme Court on petition ' sufficiency); § 19-208.04(A) (ten days to seek mandamus against recorder on recall certifications); and § 19-208.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 19-208.04(B) — 3 cases
Morales v. archibald/phoenix Urban Proj./bowers/fann, 439 P.3d 1179 (Ariz. 2019).
“¶4 The Committee moved to dismiss, arguing that Morales lacked a statutory cause of action, as the sole statute authorizing an elector's challenge to recall petitions is A.R.S. § 19-208.04, which only allows challenges to "the number of signatures certified by the county…”
Johnson v. Maehling, 597 P.2d 1 (Ariz. 1979).
“The *17 case was brought on direct appeal to this court pursuant to A.R.S. § 19-208.04(B). We denied relief to the appellants in an order issued May 9, 1978 with a notation that a formal opinion would follow.”
Pointe Resorts, Inc. v. Culbertson, 761 P.2d 1041 (Ariz. 1988).
“03(A) (ten days to seek mandamus against Secretary of State’s refusal to certify); § 19-122(C) (ten days to appeal to Supreme Court on petition ' sufficiency); § 19-208.04(A) (ten days to seek mandamus against recorder on recall certifications); and § 19-208.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.