Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Roberts v. Spray

Supreme Court of Arizona

November 6, 1950

ROBERTS et al.
v.
SPRAY et al., Members of Board of Sup'rs of Pinal County, et al

Page 809

Judgment affirmed.

Tom Fulbright, of Florence, Stokes & Scanland, of Coolidge, Ellis & Walker, of Eloy, Allan K. Perry, of Phoenix, for appellants.

Preston F. Sult, Co. Atty., Florence, Reed & Wood, Sp. Counsel, Coolidge, for appellees.

Phelps, Justice. La Prade, C. J., and Udall, Stanford and De Concini, JJ., concur.

OPINION

Phelps, Justice.

Page 810

[71 Ariz. 63] Plaintiffs-appellants herein, brought this action under the Declaratory Judgment Act, [71 Ariz. 64] A.C.A.1939, § 27-701 et seq., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, against defendants-appellees, members of the board of supervisors of Pinal County, and Fred O. Wilson as Attorney General of the state, seeking to have declared unconstitutional House Bill No. 170 enacted as chapter 27 of the Session Laws of 1949 and known as the "Hospital District Act of 1949."

Appellants allege in their complaint that the Act violates the 14th amendment to the Constitution of the United States and article 2, section 4 of the constitution of the state of Arizona because the provisions thereof are so vague, ambiguous, indefinite and uncertain as to be unintelligible and unenforcible in that it is impossible to determine from the Act

(a) Whether the hospital district may itself operate a hospital or must lease the same to a non-profit corporation;

(b) For what purposes bonds of the hospital district may be issued, and particularly whether such bonds may be issued to provide funds with which to operate a hospital;

(c) For which purposes district taxes may be levied, and particularly whether such taxes may be levied to provide funds with which to operate the hospital;

(d) How the affairs of the hospital district shall be settled in the event of its dissolution, particularly in the liquidation of its debts and in the disposal of the surplus property or proceeds, if any, after payment of such debts;

(e) Who are qualified electors;

(f) Whether or not the hospital district is a tax-levying improvement district within the meaning of article 13, section 7 of the constitution of Arizona.

Appellants further allege that said Act violates sections 3 and 9 of article 9 of the constitution of Arizona in that said Act does not distinctly state the tax imposed nor the object for which said tax shall be applied. Appellees filed a motion to dismiss the complaint upon the ground that it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The court thereafter granted the motion to dismiss and entered its judgment that appellants "take nothing by reason of their complaint." From this ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.