Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Sandblom v. Corbin, 608 P.2d 317.

66 citing documents.

In RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO V.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
In RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO V.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
(“[A] case becomes moot when an event occurs, .
Voice v. Hall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Voice v. Hall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Cf. Redelsperger, 207 Ariz. at 437, ¶ 27 (–85 (App. 1980)) (noting that issuance of use permits is generally administrative and zoning generally legislative because “the public is not affected to as great a degree by the issuance of [use] permits as they would be in cases of changes in zoning, because they are already on notice that these special uses are
Aspen v. Wakefield Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Aspen v. Wakefield Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶97 “[A] case becomes moot when an event occurs, pending an appeal, which renders the relief sought either impossible or without practical effect on the parties to the action.”
Kara B. v. Dcs, A.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Kara B. v. Dcs, A.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
(explaining a case becomes moot when the relief sought would no longer have any practical effect on the parties); Rita J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
Taxpayers v. Price 418 P.3d 1103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
Taxpayers v. Price 418 P.3d 1103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
¶ 1 ; see also Sandblom v. Corbin , , 184, , 323 (App. 1980) ("When a Board of Supervisors enacts a zoning ordinance or amendment thereto, it acts in a legislative capacity....
Baron v. Dillard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Baron v. Dillard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(finding a case is moot when an event occurs which renders the relief sought without practical effect on the parties to the action).
McCammon v. Olson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
McCammon v. Olson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Owners Ass’n v. City of Sedona, ¶ 5, ( ); see also Contempo-Tempe Mobile Home Owners Ass’n v. Steinert, (noting a question becomes moot through “a change in a condition of affairs”) (citations omitted).
Arlene L. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Arlene L. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Owners Ass’n v. City of Sedona, ¶ 5, ( ); see also Contempo-Tempe, 144 Ariz. at 229, 696 P.2d at 1378 (noting a question becomes moot through “a change in a condition of affairs”) (citations omitted).
Arpaio v. Maricopa County Board of Supervisors 238 P.3d 626 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Arpaio v. Maricopa County Board of Supervisors 238 P.3d 626 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
COUNTY OF COCHISE v. SEBASTIAO FARIA and MARIA FARI Dba FARIA DAIRY Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
COUNTY OF COCHISE v. SEBASTIAO FARIA and MARIA FARI Dba FARIA DAIRY Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
When a county enacts zoning regulations, it must “adhere to the state statutes which delegate that power.”
Wonders v. Pima County 89 P.3d 810 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Wonders v. Pima County 89 P.3d 810 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
§ 11-802; , (governmental body has authority to act “in derogation of common law property rights” through zoning ordinances adopted in compliance with procedural prerequisites).
Redelsperger v. City of Avondale 87 P.3d 843 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Redelsperger v. City of Avondale 87 P.3d 843 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
¶ 27 -85 , -24 (App.1980), while considering the kind of action the Mari-copa County Board of Supervisors could take without prior notice and hearing, we indicated that: When a Board of Supervisors enacts a zoning ordinance or amendment thereto, it acts in a legislative capacity.
Browne v. Bayless 25 P.3d 749 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Browne v. Bayless 25 P.3d 749 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
A case becomes moot “when an event occurs, pending an appeal, which renders the relief sought either impossible or without practical effect on the parties to the action.”
Douglass v. Gendron 20 P.3d 1174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Douglass v. Gendron 20 P.3d 1174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Abbott, 129 Ariz. at 275 , 630 P.2d at 571 ; -83 , -22 (App.1980).
Sedona Private Property Owners Ass'n v. City of Sedona 961 P.2d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Sedona Private Property Owners Ass'n v. City of Sedona 961 P.2d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
City of Tucson v. Pima County 949 P.2d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
City of Tucson v. Pima County 949 P.2d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Kahn v. Thompson 916 P.2d 1124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
Kahn v. Thompson 916 P.2d 1124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
Fisher v. Maricopa County Stadium District 912 P.2d 1345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Fisher v. Maricopa County Stadium District 912 P.2d 1345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Bird v. State Through Corbin 821 P.2d 287 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Bird v. State Through Corbin 821 P.2d 287 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
In statutory interpretation, the court must attempt “to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the lawmaking body.”
Marriage of Rutherford v. Babcock 814 P.2d 361 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Marriage of Rutherford v. Babcock 814 P.2d 361 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
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
Campbell v. Westdahl 715 P.2d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Campbell v. Westdahl 715 P.2d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Iacouzze v. Iacouzze 672 P.2d 949 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Iacouzze v. Iacouzze 672 P.2d 949 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Magna Investment & Development Corp. v. Brooks Fashion Stores, Inc. 669 P.2d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Magna Investment & Development Corp. v. Brooks Fashion Stores, Inc. 669 P.2d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Iacouzze v. Iacouzze 672 P.2d 949 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Iacouzze v. Iacouzze 672 P.2d 949 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983