residency requirement (Arizona) · Go Syfert
← Arizona issues

residency requirement in Arizona

6 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1972–2024 2 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Arizona courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
St. Joseph's Hospital & Medical Center v. Maricopa Countygreen
ariz · 1984 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024
1 sentence

2024In analyzing whether someone present in Arizona without lawful authority could qualify for indigent medical treatment, the Court noted that to qualify, “the patient [had to] be indigent and ‘a resident of the county for the preceding twelve months.’” Id. at 98 (emphasis added) (quoting A.R.S. 11-297(A) (1973)). 8 Thus, the need to establish domicile, let alone the legal 8 The Court noted that the Supreme Court had previously held the durational aspect of the residency requirement unconstitutional in Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County, 415 U.S. 250 (1974).

11
Thomas P. Morrissey v. Logan Stan Garnergreen
ariz · 2020 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020
1 sentence

2020See Morrissey v. Garner, 461 P.3d 428 (Ariz. 2020).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
Triano v. Massion green
ariz · 1973
2 sentences

2022The court concluded that Triano's construction of the residency provision as requiring only that a candidate be a resident of the Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-22-0110-EL/AP Page 5 of 6 ward for any one-year period prior to becoming a candidate would constitute “an unreasonable and constrained construction” of the charter provision. 109 Ariz. at 510 , 513 P.2d at 939 .

2022The court concluded that Triano's construction of the residency provision as requiring only that a candidate be a resident of the Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-22-0110-EL/AP Page 5 of 6 ward for any one-year period prior to becoming a candidate would constitute “an unreasonable and constrained construction” of the charter provision. 109 Ariz. at 510 , 513 P.2d at 939 .

21984–2022
Arizona Board of Regents v. Harper green
ariz · 1972
2 sentences

2006Id.

2006Id.

21972–2006
Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County green
scotus · 1974
1 sentence

2024In analyzing whether someone present in Arizona without lawful authority could qualify for indigent medical treatment, the Court noted that to qualify, “the patient [had to] be indigent and ‘a resident of the county for the preceding twelve months.’” Id. at 98 (emphasis added) (quoting A.R.S. 11-297(A) (1973)). 8 Thus, the need to establish domicile, let alone the legal 8 The Court noted that the Supreme Court had previously held the durational aspect of the residency requirement unconstitutional in Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County, 415 U.S. 250 (1974).

12024–2024
Shapiro v. Thompson green
scotus · 1969
2 sentences

1972A.R.S. § 11-297 provides: “A. Except in emergency cases when immediate hospitalization or medical care is necessary for the preservation of life or limb no person shall be provided hospitalization, medical care or outpatient relief * * * without first filing * * * a statement * * * that he is an indigent * * * and that he has -been a resident of the county for the preceding twelve months.” The principal case relied upon by Respondents is that of Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 , 89 S.Ct. 1322 , 22 L.Ed.2d 600 (1969).

1972A.R.S. § 11-297 provides: “A. Except in emergency cases when immediate hospitalization or medical care is necessary for the preservation of life or limb no person shall be provided hospitalization, medical care or outpatient relief * * * without first filing * * * a statement * * * that he is an indigent * * * and that he has -been a resident of the county for the preceding twelve months.” The principal case relied upon by Respondents is that of Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 , 89 S.Ct. 1322 , 22 L.Ed.2d 600 (1969).

11972–1972

Where else courts name it

NY 87 (1974–2025) IL 43 (1977–2026) PA 42 (1968–2026) MI 39 (1968–2025) TX 39 (1975–2024) CA 37 (1970–2026) OH 35 (1975–2025) FL 31 (1966–2025) NJ 27 (1970–2021) AL 19 (1974–2026) CT 17 (1979–2024) AR 15 (1981–2024) WA 14 (1974–2025) MN 14 (1971–2016) MA 13 (1971–2020) MS 13 (1976–2023) WI 12 (1976–2016) AK 12 (1973–2024) IA 12 (1982–2024) MO 10 (1976–2020) GA 10 (1978–2025) WV 10 (1979–2019) RI 9 (1990–2023) MD 9 (1967–2021) KY 8 (2002–2025) IN 8 (1986–2019) LA 7 (1975–2025) AZ 6 (1972–2024) CO 6 (1983–2025) TN 6 (1991–2019) VT 6 (1971–2016) OK 6 (1977–2015) NC 5 (1984–2025) NV 5 (1978–2022) ID 4 (1972–2005) NE 4 (1982–2021) ME 4 (1980–2020) HI 4 (1972–2012) KS 3 (1978–1992) VI 3 (1987–2017) DE 3 (2001–2021) SD 3 (1978–2005) NH 2 (1993–2014) WY 2 (1994–1997) VA 2 (1972–2023) NM 2 (1990–2015) ND 2 (1974–2020) UT 2 (2016–2021) DC 2 (1993–2024) OR 2 (2001–2022)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check