Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State Ex Rel. Herman v. Southern Pacific Co., 445 P.2d 186.

32 citing documents.

A Tumbling-T Ranches v. Flood Control District 217 P.3d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
A Tumbling-T Ranches v. Flood Control District 217 P.3d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Miller Park, L.L.C. 164 P.3d 667 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Miller Park, L.L.C. 164 P.3d 667 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
238, 241, (“If the character of the property absolutely precludes any ascertainment of the market value,” then “consideration may be given to the value peculiar to the owner, the cost of cure, replacement cost minus depreciation, capitalized cost of inconvenience or any other manner which would be a fair method of co
Dixon v. City of Phoenix 845 P.2d 1107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Dixon v. City of Phoenix 845 P.2d 1107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Calmat of Arizona v. STATE EX REL., MILLER 836 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Calmat of Arizona v. STATE EX REL., MILLER 836 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State Ex Rel. Miller v. Filler 812 P.2d 620 Ariz. 1991
State Ex Rel. Miller v. Filler 812 P.2d 620 Ariz. 1991
Corrigan v. City of Scottsdale 720 P.2d 528 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Corrigan v. City of Scottsdale 720 P.2d 528 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
“To establish that an ordinance is confiscatory, it must be shown that the restrictions preclude use of the property for ‘any purpose to which it is reasonably established.’ Rubi v. 49’er Country Club Estates, Inc., 7 Ariz.App.
Selective Resources v. Superior Court 700 P.2d 849 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Selective Resources v. Superior Court 700 P.2d 849 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
where the court noted that the concept of just compensation should not be reduced to a formula applicable in all situations.
Pima County v. Palos Companies Unlimited 682 P.2d 1148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Pima County v. Palos Companies Unlimited 682 P.2d 1148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
it is the landowners’ contention that their evidence concerning the construction of a bridge across the drainage channel is a competent method of proving its severance damages.
Webber v. Smith 632 P.2d 998 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Webber v. Smith 632 P.2d 998 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Zisser v. State 592 P.2d 383 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Matter of One 1974 Mercedes Benz, Etc. 592 P.2d 383 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Matter of One 1974 Mercedes Benz, Etc. 592 P.2d 383 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Zisser v. State 592 P.2d 383 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Lancaster v. Chemi-Cote Perlite Corporation 511 P.2d 673 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Lancaster v. Chemi-Cote Perlite Corporation 511 P.2d 673 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
: “The appellate court will not weigh the evidence to determine its preponderance upon a disputed fact.
American Savings Life Insurance v. State ex rel. Herman 476 P.2d 680 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
American Savings Life Insurance v. State ex rel. Herman 476 P.2d 680 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
the fundamental rule that damage must be based on a diminution of market value of the remaining property has remained intact.
Employers' Liability Assurance Corp. v. Glens Falls Insurance 470 P.2d 682 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Employers' Liability Assurance Corp. v. Glens Falls Insurance 470 P.2d 682 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
the court held: “The appellate court will not weigh the evidence to determine its preponderance upon a disputed fact.
City of Phoenix v. Burke 452 P.2d 722 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
City of Phoenix v. Burke 452 P.2d 722 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
England v. Ally Ong Hing 446 P.2d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
England v. Ally Ong Hing 446 P.2d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969