Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Pingitore v. Town of Cave Creek, 981 P.2d 129.

32 citing documents.

Silk v. Blodgett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Silk v. Blodgett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
McGeary v. City of Sedona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
McGeary v. City of Sedona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Nova v. Mesa Board Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Nova v. Mesa Board Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Maricopa v. Rana Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Maricopa v. Rana Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶9 for their contention that the County has engaged in affirmative conduct inconsistent with its current position that, as operated by Ascend, the Home lacks a “family-like environment.” There, the town sought to halt the construction of the plaintiffs’ residence, objecting to their proposed construction sit
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).
Warner v. Phx Board Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Warner v. Phx Board Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
§ 12-910(E)); ¶ 18 (App. 1998).
Levine v. phoenix/suns Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Levine v. phoenix/suns Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Flood Control v. Abc Sand Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Flood Control v. Abc Sand Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶40 ¶ 2, Cave Creek issued appellants a construction permit to build a driveway.
Gorman v. Pima County 287 P.3d 800 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Gorman v. Pima County 287 P.3d 800 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
10 detriment of the public interest.’” quoting Valencia, 959 P.2d at 1267.
Stagecoach Trails MHC, L.L.C. v. City of Benson 278 P.3d 314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Stagecoach Trails MHC, L.L.C. v. City of Benson 278 P.3d 314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Pursuant to such review, the superior court is limited to determining whether the board “acted arbitrarily, capriciously or in an abuse of its discretion,” , and “reviews the record before the board when the board made the decision,” Austin Shea (Ariz.) 7th St.
Scenic Arizona v. City of Phoenix Board of Adjustment 268 P.3d 370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Scenic Arizona v. City of Phoenix Board of Adjustment 268 P.3d 370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Richard E. Lambert, Ltd. v. City of Tucson Dept. of Procurement Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Richard E. Lambert, Ltd. v. City of Tucson Dept. of Procurement Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
v. City of Tucson, (appellate court bound by board’s factual findings); (we affirm administrative decision if supported by credible evidence); see also Special Fund Div. v. Indus.
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
(finding sufficiently formal act based on town’s issuance of “a variety of permits and variances,” zoning clearance, and written response to building permit application).
Lowe v. Pima County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Lowe v. Pima County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
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
Luther Construction Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 74 P.3d 276 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Luther Construction Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 74 P.3d 276 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
-63, 265-66, ¶¶ 2-14, 23-32 , -31, 133-34 (App.1998) (holding town’s issuance of variety of permits and variances over time satisfied formalism requirement); Foote’s Dixie Dandy, Inc. v. McHenry, 270 Ark.