Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Murphy v. Town of Chino Valley, 789 P.2d 1072.

38 citing documents.

Koo v. Scottsdale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Koo v. Scottsdale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
“In a special action to review a municipal board of adjustment decision, the [superior] court’s primary purpose is to determine whether the board’s decision was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion.”
Red Mountain v. Cobblestone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Red Mountain v. Cobblestone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
“In a special action to review a municipal board of adjustment decision, the [superior] court’s primary purpose is to determine whether the board’s decision was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion.”
Mba v. Scottsdale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Mba v. Scottsdale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State Bar v. Berry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State Bar v. Berry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
will not be considered on appeal.” (citing Norcor of Am.
Son Silver v. Sedona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Son Silver v. Sedona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
5 Son Silver, et al. v. Sedona, et al. Decision of the Court inferred a statutory intent to give the board de novo review.”); (stating the trial court erred “concluding that the board was without authority to conduct an evidentiary hearing .
Adams v. Giguere Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Adams v. Giguere Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
3 ADAMS et al. v. GIGUERE et al. Decision of the Court -75 (App. 1989), ¶ 18 (App. 1998).
Silver v. Pueblo Del Sol Water Co. 384 P.3d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Silver v. Pueblo Del Sol Water Co. 384 P.3d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 7, (quoting Murphy v. Town of Chino 9 ).
Pawn 1st, LLC v. City of Phoenix 373 P.3d 556 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Pawn 1st, LLC v. City of Phoenix 373 P.3d 556 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
and Van Buren, ¶ 29 (App. 2006)
Robertson v. La Paz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Robertson v. La Paz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
U-Haul v. Tempe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
U-Haul v. Tempe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Keystone Floor & More, LLC v. Arizona Registrar of Contractors 219 P.3d 237 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Keystone Floor & More, LLC v. Arizona Registrar of Contractors 219 P.3d 237 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
rative Decisions 1(a) (stating that "[t]hese rules shall govern the procedure in all appeals from administrative decisions taken to the superior court”); , ("an action for judicial review of an administrative decision is ‘in the nature of an appeal’ ”); , (noting that parties to controversy before ROC may bring an "appeal to superior court under the Administrative Review Act").
Austin Shea (Arizona) 7th Street & Van Buren, L.L.C. v. City of Phoenix 142 P.3d 693 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Austin Shea (Arizona) 7th Street & Van Buren, L.L.C. v. City of Phoenix 142 P.3d 693 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Aegis of Arizona, L.L.C. v. Town of Marana 81 P.3d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Aegis of Arizona, L.L.C. v. Town of Marana 81 P.3d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
See Bateman v. City of West Bountiful, 89 F.3d 704, 707 (10th Cir.1996) (Under Utah’s Municipal Land Use Code, which largely mirrors Arizona’s, “the board of adjustment has the authority to make a final determination regarding [plaintiffs] property.”); , (board of adjustment required CUP application after zoning administrator declared use was permitted).
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
Pingitore v. Town of Cave Creek 981 P.2d 129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Pingitore v. Town of Cave Creek 981 P.2d 129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Whiteco Outdoor Advertising v. City of Tucson 972 P.2d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Whiteco Outdoor Advertising v. City of Tucson 972 P.2d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
On the other hand, both the superior court and this court are bound by the Board’s factual findings and generally should defer to its decision unless it is “arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion.”
K.B. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 941 P.2d 1288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
K.B. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 941 P.2d 1288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Feidler, 178 Ariz. at 534 n. 4, 875 P.2d at 193 n. 4.
Precision Components v. Harrison, Harper 880 P.2d 1098 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Precision Components v. Harrison, Harper 880 P.2d 1098 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Lane v. City of Phoenix 816 P.2d 934 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Lane v. City of Phoenix 816 P.2d 934 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991