Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite City of Phoenix v. Burke, 452 P.2d 722.

26 citing documents.

Wait v. City of Scottsdale 618 P.2d 601 Ariz. 1980
Wait v. City of Scottsdale 618 P.2d 601 Ariz. 1980
Chapman v. Field 602 P.2d 481 Ariz. 1979
Chapman v. Field 602 P.2d 481 Ariz. 1979
Youngren v. Rezzonico 543 P.2d 142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Youngren v. Rezzonico 543 P.2d 142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
In any review by an appellate court we must consider the evidence and possible inferences therefrom in a manner most favorable to upholding the judgment of the *308 jury and trial court.’ Dietal v. Day, supra
City of Phoenix v. Oglesby 537 P.2d 934 Ariz. 1975
City of Phoenix v. Oglesby 537 P.2d 934 Ariz. 1975
Not being the appropriate body to substitute its ideas for that of the legislature, this is an area in which the validity of the enactment will be presumed, City of Phoenix v. Fehlner, supra, , that the trial court will be upheld if there is evidence in support of the judgment, is not the applicable rule in zoning cases.
City of Tempe v. Rasor 536 P.2d 239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
City of Tempe v. Rasor 536 P.2d 239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
City of Phoenix v. Beall 524 P.2d 1314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
City of Phoenix v. Collins 524 P.2d 1318 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
City of Phoenix v. Collins 524 P.2d 1318 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
88 , , Klensin v. City of Tucson, 10 Ariz.App.
City of Phoenix v. Beall 524 P.2d 1314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
In one case, , a case not presented to our Supreme Court for review, the majority of the Court used the usual standards of review in civil actions, namely, that the trial court will be upheld if there is evidence in support of its judgment.
City of Phoenix v. Price 500 P.2d 1132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
City of Phoenix v. Price 500 P.2d 1132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
wherein Division One of this court expressly rejected the holding of Rubi with Judge Stevens dissenting.
Dietel v. Day 492 P.2d 455 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Dietel v. Day 492 P.2d 455 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Mecham v. United Bank of Arizona 489 P.2d 247 Ariz. 1971
Mecham v. United Bank of Arizona 489 P.2d 247 Ariz. 1971
Bank, , 243 P. 598 (1926); In Re Holman’s Adoption
Turley v. Adams 484 P.2d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Turley v. Adams 484 P.2d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
16 A.R.S., Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 52
Navajo Freight Lines, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance 471 P.2d 309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Navajo Freight Lines, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance 471 P.2d 309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
51 , , Ashton Co. v. State, 9 Ariz.App.
Klensin v. City of Tucson 459 P.2d 316 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Klensin v. City of Tucson 459 P.2d 316 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
1016 (1926); , *402 (1969); , 272 P. 923 (1928).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by