DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Town of Gilbert v. Maricopa County, 141 P.3d 416.

27 citing documents.

  • Rachelle Renee Westerman, Paul Bryan Westerman v. Timothy E. Ernst 563 P.3d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
  • Brush & Nib v. City of Phoenix Ariz. 2019
  • Brush & Nib v. City of Phoenix Ariz. 2019
    See Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Comm’n, 220 F.3d 1134, 1138 (9th Cir. 2000) (“The constitutional component of the ripeness inquiry is often treated under the rubric of standing and, in many cases, ripeness coincides squarely with standing’s injury in fact prong.”); ¶ 8 (App. 2006) (stating that “[r]ipeness is analogous to standing”).
  • Chandler v. Chandler Improvement Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Chandler v. Chandler Improvement Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    Ass'n, ¶25 (App. 2013); ¶ 8 (App. 2006) (noting “[r]ipeness is analogous to standing”).
  • Vahidi v. Hosseini Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Vahidi v. Hosseini Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    -45, ¶ 8 (App. 2006) (explaining that the doctrine of ripeness “prevents a court from rendering a premature judgment or opinion on a situation that may never occur.”) ().
  • Else v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Else v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    A court may not enter “a premature judgment or opinion on a situation that may never occur.” -45, ¶ 8 (App. 2006) ().
  • Steve Gallardo v. State of Arizona 336 P.3d 717 Ariz. 2014
  • Steve Gallardo v. State of Arizona 336 P.3d 717 Ariz. 2014
    See, e.g., State v. Levy’s, –93, –31 (1978) (relying on “agreed facts” showing that all business suffered from the problem that the tax exemption offered only to border businesses was intended to solve); ¶¶ 18–19, (concluding that county islands not included in the class also lacked the fire and emergency services that the legislation provided to a select group of county islands); –14 ¶¶ 9–12, –93 (App. 2000) (relying on legislative fi
  • Gallardo v. State of Arizona 335 P.3d 523 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Gallardo v. State of Arizona 335 P.3d 523 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Hamm v. Ryan 318 P.3d 868 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
  • Hamm v. Ryan 318 P.3d 868 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
    A statute is an unconstitutional special law if it fails to meet any of the following requirements: “(1) the classification is rationally related to a legitimate governmental objective, (2) the classification is legitimate, encompassing all members of the relevant class, and (3) the class is elastic, allowing members to move in and out of it.” ¶ 14 , ( ¶ 14 , ).
  • KOOL RADIATORS, INC. v. Evans 278 P.3d 310 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • KOOL RADIATORS, INC. v. Evans 278 P.3d 310 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
    "Ripeness is analogous to standing because the doctrine prevents a court from rendering a premature judgment or opinion on a situation that may never occur.” -45, ¶ 8 , -20 (App.2006) ( , ) (internal quotation marks omitted).
  • Ramsey v. YAVAPAI FAMILY ADVOCACY CENTER 235 P.3d 285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • Ramsey v. YAVAPAI FAMILY ADVOCACY CENTER 235 P.3d 285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • ARIZONA ASSOCIATION OF PROVIDERS v. State 219 P.3d 216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • ARIZONA ASSOCIATION OF PROVIDERS v. State 219 P.3d 216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    ¶ 8 , ("Ripeness is analogous to standing because the `doctrine prevents a court from rendering a premature judgment or opinion on a situation that may never occur.'") (citation omitted).
  • Santa Fe Ridge Homeowners' Ass'n v. Bartschi 199 P.3d 646 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
  • Santa Fe Ridge Homeowners' Ass'n v. Bartschi 199 P.3d 646 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
    -45, ¶ 8 , -420 (App.2006), quoting *398 , (“Ripeness is analogous to standing because the ‘doctrine prevents a court from rendering a premature judgment or opinion on a situation that may never occur.’ ”); see also Faman v. Fir
  • Lincoln v. Holt 156 P.3d 438 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • Lincoln v. Holt 156 P.3d 438 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • Stewart v. Carroll 154 P.3d 382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • Stewart v. Carroll 154 P.3d 382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    ‘We review the constitutionality of a statute de novo.” ¶ 11 , Norgord v. State ex rel.