3613 Ltd. v. Department of Liquor Licenses & Control (1999)

See, e.g., Loving v. United States, 517 U.S. 748, 758-59 , 116 S.Ct. 1737 , 135 L.Ed.2d 36 (1996) (recognizing that Congress may delegate its authority, but that it may not delegate its constitutional power to make law); 3613 Ltd. v. Dep’t of Liquor Licenses & Control, 194 Ariz. 178, 183, ¶21 , 978 P.2d 1282, 1287 (App.1999) (“The legislature may not delegate its power to make laws.”); see also In re Santa Cruz, 8 Ariz.App. 349, 351 , 446 P.2d 253, 255 (1968) (recognizing do…

DISCUSSION A. Equal Protection ¶ 6 This court reviews de novo challenges to a statute’s constitutionality. 3613 Ltd. v. Dep’t of Liquor Licenses & Control, 194 Ariz. 178, 182, ¶ 17 , 978 P.2d 1282, 1286 (App.1999).

Ct., 131 Ariz. 431, 438 , 641 P.2d 1275, 1282 (1982); Martin v. Reinstein, 195 Ariz. 293, 302 , 987 P.2d 779, 788 (App.1999); 3613 Ltd. v. Dep’t of Liquor Licenses & Control, 194 Ariz. 178, 182, ¶ 17 , 978 P.2d 1282, 1286 (App.1999). ¶ 8 The patient first argues that A.R.S. § 32-1473 violates the anti-abrogation clause of the Arizona Constitution.

Moreover, as explained throughout this opinion Phoenix has a substantial, if not compelling, interest in eradicating discrimination based on sexual orientation. 18 BRUSH & NIB, et al. v. PHOENIX Opinion of the Court governmental interest like eliminating . . . public evils.” 3613 Ltd. v. Dep’t of Liquor Licenses & Control, 194 Ariz. 178, 186, ¶ 36 (App. 1999) (quoting Jaycees, 468 U.S. at 622 ). ¶34 Although the First Amendment “fully protects expression about philosophical,…

See 3613 Ltd. v. Dep’t of Liquor Licenses & Control, 194 Ariz. 178, 184, ¶ 24 , 978 P.2d 1282, 1288 (App. 1999) (explaining general language in regulation is appropriate to “cover a variety of factual situations” without “unduly limit[ing its] application”); People v. Lapcheske, 86 Cal. Rptr. 2d 565, 568 (Ct. App. 1999) (explaining that the fact that legislature “clarified existing law by adding language that expressly prohibited the type of conduct defendant committed” did …

See 3613 Ltd. v. Dep’t of Liquor Licenses & Control, 194 Ariz. 178, ¶ 17 , 978 P.2d 1282, 1286 (App. 1999).

See 3613 Ltd. v. Dep’t of Liquor Licenses & Control, 194 Ariz. 178, ¶ 17 , 978 P.2d 1282, 1286 (App. 1999).

See 3613 Ltd. v. Dep’t of Liquor Licenses and Control, 194 Ariz. 178 , 978 P.2d 1282, 1287 (App.1999) (citing Lake Havasu City v. Mohave County, 138 Ariz. 552 , 675 P.2d 1371, 1378 (App.1983)).

See 3613 Limited v. Department of Liquor Licenses and Control, 194 Ariz. 178, 182, ¶ 17 , 978 P.2d 1282, 1286, ¶ 17 (App.1999). ¶ 6 Article IV, part 2, section 19(7) of the Arizona Constitution prohibits the legislature from enacting local or special laws involving the “[p]unishment of crimes and misdemeanors .” When determining whether a law constitutes special legislation, we conduct a three-pronged analysis to decide whether “(1) the classification is rationally related t…

See 3613 Ltd. v. Dep’t of Liquor Licenses & Control, 194 Ariz. 178, 182, ¶ 17 (App. 1999) (citations omitted). ¶10 Berry contends that Rule 31’s provisions governing the practice of law and unauthorized practice of law are unconstitutionally overbroad and vague because the rule identifies several exemptions.