Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Phoenix City Council v. Canyon Ford, Inc., 473 P.2d 797.

32 citing documents.

Rivera v. City of Phoenix 925 P.2d 741 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Rivera v. City of Phoenix 925 P.2d 741 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
595, 599-600, -02 (1970).
Fidelity National Title Insurance v. Pima County 831 P.2d 426 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Fidelity National Title Insurance v. Pima County 831 P.2d 426 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
600 , Phoenix City Council v. Canyon Ford, Inc.
Outdoor Systems, Inc. v. City of Mesa 819 P.2d 44 Ariz. 1991
Outdoor Systems, Inc. v. City of Mesa 819 P.2d 44 Ariz. 1991
y in light of the court of appeals’ opinion stating that “Arizona has never embraced the rule of construing provisions permitting nonconforming uses strictly against the nonconforming user.” , , citing Phoenix City Council v. Canyon Ford, Inc.
Rotter v. Coconino County 818 P.2d 704 Ariz. 1991
Rotter v. Coconino County 818 P.2d 704 Ariz. 1991
Phoenix City Council v. Canyon Ford, Inc., [ , ].
Neal v. City of Kingman 810 P.2d 572 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Neal v. City of Kingman 810 P.2d 572 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
600, 608 , or the permittee in good faith has commenced construction, Phoenix City Council v. Canyon Ford, Inc.
Circle K Corp. v. City of Mesa 803 P.2d 457 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Circle K Corp. v. City of Mesa 803 P.2d 457 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Phoenix City Council v. Canyon Ford, Inc.
Rotter v. Coconino County 805 P.2d 1019 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Rotter v. Coconino County 805 P.2d 1019 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Phoenix City Counsel v. Canyon Ford, Inc., [ , ] But cf., , (Struck-meyer, J., dissenting) (statutes permitting nonconforming uses are to be strictly construed against the non-conforming user).
Gannett Outdoor Co. v. City of Mesa 768 P.2d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Gannett Outdoor Co. v. City of Mesa 768 P.2d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Phoenix City Council v. Canyon Ford, Inc.
Havasu Heights Ranch & Development Corp. v. State Land Department 764 P.2d 37 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Havasu Heights Ranch & Development Corp. v. State Land Department 764 P.2d 37 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Black’s Law Dictionary 1710 (4th ed. 1968); City Council v. Canyon Ford, Inc.
Burroughs v. Town of Paradise Valley 724 P.2d 1239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Burroughs v. Town of Paradise Valley 724 P.2d 1239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
272 P. 923 (1928); Phoenix City Council v. Canyon Ford, Inc.
Watanabe v. City of Phoenix 683 P.2d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Watanabe v. City of Phoenix 683 P.2d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Phoenix City Council v. Canyon Ford, Inc.
National Advertising Co. v. Arizona Department of Transportation 617 P.2d 50 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
National Advertising Co. v. Arizona Department of Transportation 617 P.2d 50 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
600 , and Phoenix City Council v. Canyon Ford, Inc.
Pima County v. Cardi 600 P.2d 37 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Pima County v. Cardi 600 P.2d 37 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Phoenix City Council v. Canyon Ford, Inc.
State v. Owens 562 P.2d 738 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Owens 562 P.2d 738 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
When it is considered that zoning ordinances, being in derogation of common law property rights, will be construed in doubtful cases in favor of a property owner, Phoenix City Council v. Canyon Ford, Inc., , the answer is at best highly uncertain.
Town of Paradise Valley v. Gulf Leisure Corp. 557 P.2d 532 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Town of Paradise Valley v. Gulf Leisure Corp. 557 P.2d 532 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Cf. Phoenix City Council v. Canyon Ford, Inc., , *608 (1970); 1 Yokley, Zoning Law and Practice, § 9-5 (3d ed. 1965).
Town of Cottonwood v. Evans 480 P.2d 16 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Town of Cottonwood v. Evans 480 P.2d 16 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Phoenix City Council v. Canyon Ford, Inc.