Arizona Supreme Court, 1938

Udall v. McAnnally

Udall v. McAnnally
Arizona Supreme Court · Decided May 9, 1938
52 Ariz. 97

Counsel

Mr. I. A. Jennings, City Attorney, Mr. Hess Seaman and Mr. Richard F. Harless, his Assistants; Messrs. Snell, Strouss & Salmon, Mr. J. Early Craig, Messrs. Kibbey, Bennett, Gust, Smith & Rosenfeld, Mr. T. G. McKesson, Mr. Frank J. Duffy, Mr. T. A. Carson, Mr. Emmett R. Feighner and Mr. Evan S. Stallcup, for Appellant,, Messrs. Palmer & Cornelius and Messrs. Cunningham & Carson, for Appellees., Mr. E. C. Locklear, City Attorney, Prescott; Mr. G. H. Drumm, City Attorney, Winslow; Mr. William H. Westover, City Attorney, Yuma; Mr. Stephen D. Monahan, City Attorney, Nogales; Mr. Cullen A. Little, City Attorney, Globe; Mr. George F. Senner, City Attorney, Miami; Mr. James A. Walsh, City Attorney, Mesa; Mr. Martin Gentry, City Attorney, Will-cox; Mr. A. Van Wagenen, Jr., City Attorney, Casa Grande; Mr. Edward R. Byers, Town Attorney, Williams; Mr. I. F. Wolpe, Jr., Town Attorney, Wickenburg; Mr. James T. Gentry, City Attorney, Bisbee; Mr. Orinn C. Compton, City Attorney, Flagstaff; Mr. B. G. Thompson, City Attorney, Tucson, and Mr. Arthur Henderson, of Counsel, for City of Tucson, Amici Curiae.

Udall v. McAnnally

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

The question for review in this case is the same as that in case No. 3945, Udall v. Severn, ante, p. 65, 79 Pac. (2d) 347, and is controlled by the decision just handed down in that case. Under the stipulation of counsel it was submitted upon the same briefs and statement of facts.

The same order will be made as in case No. 3945.

MoALISTER, C. J., and ROSS and LOCKWOOD, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.