Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Mutschler v. City of Phoenix, 129 P.3d 71.

38 citing documents.

Barreras v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Barreras v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Whitestar v. Medmen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Whitestar v. Medmen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Freer v. Cliftonlarsonallen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Freer v. Cliftonlarsonallen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Acedo v. Mannion Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Acedo v. Mannion Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 8 (App. 2006); Ariz. R. Civ.
Helmreich v. Ahc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Helmreich v. Ahc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 8 (App. 2006) (“We will affirm the trial court’s ruling if the court was correct for any reason.”) ¶9 Helmreich next argues that no facts support using A.R.S.
Water Works v. Jonas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Water Works v. Jonas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
& Supply Co., ), and will affirm if the ruling is correct on any basis supported by the record, ¶ 8 (App. 2006) ().
Brody v. Polsinelli Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Brody v. Polsinelli Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Koch-Gulloty v. Pascuzzi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Koch-Gulloty v. Pascuzzi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Westover v. Wees Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Westover v. Wees Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
KB Home Tucson, ¶ 14 (App. 2014) ( ¶ 8 (App. 2006)).
Loma Mariposa v. Santa Cruz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Loma Mariposa v. Santa Cruz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
We can affirm the judgment on any basis supported by the record.3 ¶ 8 (App. 2006).
Ekweani v. Citimortgage Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Ekweani v. Citimortgage Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
North v. Vps Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
North v. Vps Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
We also review de novo the trial court’s application of the law, id., and we will affirm if judgment is correct on any basis supported by the record, ¶ 8 (App. 2006) ().
Kimball v. Perkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Kimball v. Perkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
v. Allen, ¶ 14 (App. 2012); ¶ 8 (App. 2006).
KB Home Tucson, Inc. v. Charter Oak Fire Insurance 340 P.3d 405 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
KB Home Tucson, Inc. v. Charter Oak Fire Insurance 340 P.3d 405 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Gammage v. Als Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Gammage v. Als Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Dos Picos Land Ltd. Partnership v. Pima County 240 P.3d 853 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Dos Picos Land Ltd. Partnership v. Pima County 240 P.3d 853 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
¶¶ 8-9 , (reviewing de novo trial court's summary judgment on issue of taking); see also Gammoh v. City of La Habra, 395 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir.2005) (summary judgment ruling that no regulatory taking occurred subject to de novo review); City of Sherman v. Wayne, 266 S.W.3d 34, 46 (Tex.Ap
Chavez v. Brewer 214 P.3d 397 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Chavez v. Brewer 214 P.3d 397 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
¶ 8 , (“We will affirm the trial court’s ruling if the court was correct for any reason.”).
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. 181 P.3d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. 181 P.3d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
“A nuisance per se or at law is ‘[a]n act, occupation, or structure which is a nuisance at all times and under any circumstances, regardless of location or surroundings.’” n. 7 , , 76 n. 7 (App. 2006), quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 962 (5th ed.1979) (alteration in Mutschler).
State v. MABERY RANCH, CO., LLC 165 P.3d 211 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. MABERY RANCH, CO., LLC 165 P.3d 211 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
: [T]he particular interest in land with respect to which a takings claimant asserts a diminution in (or elimination of) value must be a protected property interest, that is, one that inhered in the title acquired by the claimant .