Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Arizona Foundation for Neurology & Psychiatry v. Sienerth, 477 P.2d 758.

37 citing documents.

SEMPRE LTD. PARTNERSHIP v. Maricopa County 235 P.3d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
SEMPRE LTD. PARTNERSHIP v. Maricopa County 235 P.3d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Jones v. County of Coconino 35 P.3d 422 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Jones v. County of Coconino 35 P.3d 422 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Neurology & , (quot-ing Merriam-Webster’s New International, Dictionary (3d ed.1965)).
City of Tucson v. Whiteco Metrocom, Inc. 983 P.2d 759 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
City of Tucson v. Whiteco Metrocom, Inc. 983 P.2d 759 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
See Arizona Foundation for Neurology & , (statute protects rights of property owners whose property remains “unchanged” after zoning ordinance that creates nonconforming use).
Cuvelier v. Schmitz 974 P.2d 995 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Cuvelier v. Schmitz 974 P.2d 995 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
(although headings are not part of a law, they are helpful in resolving ambiguities)
City of Tucson v. State 957 P.2d 341 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
City of Tucson v. State 957 P.2d 341 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Florez v. Sargeant 917 P.2d 250 Ariz. 1996
Florez v. Sargeant 917 P.2d 250 Ariz. 1996
for Neurology & Psych, v. Sienerth, , , 136 P. 273, 275 (1913) (demurrer to complaint alleging “Knox was insane” overruled because that was an allegation of unsound mind).
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
6 See also Arizona Found, , (§ 9-462.02 “was enacted to protect the rights of property owners whose property remains unchanged after a zoning ordinance”) (emphasis added).
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
Arizona Found, for Neurology &amp
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
See Arizona Foundation for Neurology &amp
Bruce v. Chas Roberts Air Conditioning, Inc. 801 P.2d 456 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Cochise County v. Borowiec 781 P.2d 1379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Cochise County v. Borowiec 781 P.2d 1379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
See article 6, §§ 12-901 through 12-914, entitled “Judicial Review of Administrative Proceedings.” In addition to a reasonable construction of chapter 7 aided by a review of the article headings, see Arizona Foundation for Neurology & , the following legislative purpose of article 2 reinforces the conclusion that judicial review proceedings were not meant to be included within its scope.
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
However, in Arizona Foundation for Neurology & , this court had occasion to differentiate “repairs” and “alterations” permitted by the statute from “enlargements” and “extensions.” The court concluded that a hospital, which was a nonconforming use, was exempt from obtaining original use permits or permits to repair or alter the buildings in ex
Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund v. Ueki 724 P.2d 70 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund v. Ueki 724 P.2d 70 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
This court in Arizona Foundation for Neurology & , noted that if a statute is ambiguous, it might be appropriate to refer to the heading as a limited aid in resolving the ambiguity.
State v. Sweet 693 P.2d 921 Ariz. 1985
State v. Sweet 693 P.2d 921 Ariz. 1985
Co., , is only applicable when “the statute amended admitted of no ambiguity prior to amendment.”
McLeod v. Chilton 643 P.2d 712 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
McLeod v. Chilton 643 P.2d 712 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Abbott v. City of Tempe 630 P.2d 569 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Abbott v. City of Tempe 630 P.2d 569 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Arizona Found, for Neurology & Psych, v. Sienerth
Rollo v. City of Tempe 586 P.2d 1285 Ariz. 1978
Rollo v. City of Tempe 586 P.2d 1285 Ariz. 1978
East Camelback Homeowners Ass'n v. Arizona Foundation for Neurology & Psychiatry 500 P.2d 906 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
East Camelback Homeowners Ass'n v. Arizona Foundation for Neurology & Psychiatry 500 P.2d 906 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Again, a second round of lawsuits ensued, culminating in a decision by the Court of Appeals ( , ) affirming the trial court’s determination that the applicable City of Phoenix zoning ordinance required the obtaining of a use permit.
Fendler v. Texaco Oil Company 499 P.2d 179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Fendler v. Texaco Oil Company 499 P.2d 179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
See Arizona Foundation for Neurology & , Osborne v. Massachusetts Bonding and Insurance Co., 229 F.Supp.