Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Sedona Private Property Owners Ass'n v. City of Sedona, 961 P.2d 1074.

32 citing documents.

PETERSEN v. FONTES Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
PETERSEN v. FONTES Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Owners Ass’n v. City of Sedona, ¶ 5 (App. 1998)).
Joseph v. Joseph Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Joseph v. Joseph Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Owners Ass’n v. City of Sedona, ¶ 5 (App. 1998) (noting “[a] case becomes moot when an event occurs which would cause the outcome of the appeal to have no practical effect on the parties.”).
Simms v. Simms Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Simms v. Simms Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Owners Ass’n v. City of Sedona, ¶ 5 (App. 1998)); (holding that the proper remedy for a due process violation based on bias is a new “determination by a neutral decision maker”).
Safeway v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Safeway v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Owners Ass’n v. City of Sedona, ¶ 5 (App. 1998).
Bruer v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Bruer v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶ 5 (App. 1998) ("A case becomes moot when an event occurs which would cause the outcome of the appeal to have no practical effect on the parties.").
Burns v. Apsc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Burns v. Apsc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Owners Ass’n v. City of Sedona, ¶ 5 (App. 1998).
Montelongo-Morales v. Driscoll Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Montelongo-Morales v. Driscoll Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Az Regents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Az Regents Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Landry v. Landry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Landry v. Landry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Owners Ass’n v. City of Sedona, ¶ 5 (App. 1998).
Artemchuk v. Chernysh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Artemchuk v. Chernysh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Owners Ass’n v. City of Sedona, 192 5 ARTEMCHUK v. CHERNYSH Decision of the Court Ariz. 126, 127 ¶ 5
McCammon v. Olson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
McCammon v. Olson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Owners Ass’n v. City of Sedona, ¶ 5, ( ); see also Contempo-Tempe Mobile Home Owners Ass’n v. Steinert, (noting a question becomes moot through “a change in a condition of affairs”) (cit
Arlene L. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Arlene L. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Owners Ass’n v. City of Sedona, ¶ 5, ( ); see also Contempo-Tempe, 144 Ariz. at 229, 696 P.2d at 1378 (noting a question becomes moot through “a change in a condition of affairs”) (citations omitted).
Bt Capital v. Td Service Co. of Arizona 275 P.3d 598 Ariz. 2012
Bt Capital v. Td Service Co. of Arizona 275 P.3d 598 Ariz. 2012
v. City of Sedona, 192 Ariz. 126, 127, (noting that “[a] case becomes moot when an event occurs which would cause the outcome of the appeal to have no practical effect on the parties”).
Bt Capital, LLC v. Td Service Co. 265 P.3d 370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Bt Capital, LLC v. Td Service Co. 265 P.3d 370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Owners Ass’n v. City of Sedona, ¶ 5 , ).
Arpaio v. Maricopa County Board of Supervisors 238 P.3d 626 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Arpaio v. Maricopa County Board of Supervisors 238 P.3d 626 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Owners Ass’n v. City of Sedona, ¶ 5
Gregg Forszt And Vestar Arizona Xli, L.L.C. v. F. Ann Rodriguez and Stop O v. Outrageous Giveaways Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Gregg Forszt And Vestar Arizona Xli, L.L.C. v. F. Ann Rodriguez and Stop O v. Outrageous Giveaways Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Owners Ass’n v. City of Sedona