Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite City of Tucson v. Woods, 959 P.2d 394.

30 citing documents.

State v. Md Helicopters Inc Ariz. 2020
State v. Md Helicopters Inc Ariz. 2020
Co., –70 (1994) (“When seeking to ascertain the intent of legislators, courts normally give little or no weight to comments made at committee hearings by nonlegislators.”); (“[A] single member of the legislature is not able to testify regarding the intent of the legislature in passing a law.”).
Best v. Villareal Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Best v. Villareal Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Yes on Prop 200 v. Napolitano 160 P.3d 1216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Yes on Prop 200 v. Napolitano 160 P.3d 1216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Town of Gilbert v. Maricopa County 141 P.3d 416 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Town of Gilbert v. Maricopa County 141 P.3d 416 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Long v. City of Glendale 93 P.3d 519 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Long v. City of Glendale 93 P.3d 519 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
City of Tucson v. Grezaffi 23 P.3d 675 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
City of Tucson v. Grezaffi 23 P.3d 675 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
“The fundamental intent of these prohibitions on local or special laws is to prevent the enactment of statutes bestowing special favors on preferred groups or localities.”
Town of Tortolita v. Napolitano 20 P.3d 599 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Town of Tortolita v. Napolitano 20 P.3d 599 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
However, we reversed that judgment in an opinion issued November 12, 1997, , holding that the 1997 Law was an unconstitutional special and local law.
City of Tucson v. Pima County 19 P.3d 650 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
City of Tucson v. Pima County 19 P.3d 650 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
review denied; , review denied.
Jackson v. Tangreen 18 P.3d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Jackson v. Tangreen 18 P.3d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
In Re Marxus B. 13 P.3d 290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
In Re Marxus B. 13 P.3d 290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
U.S. West Communications, Inc. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 8 P.3d 396 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
U.S. West Communications, Inc. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 8 P.3d 396 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Cf. City of Scottsdale v. McDowell Mountain Irrigation & Drainage Dist., , (holding that the City had standing to challenge the formation of a water improvement district that might impede the City’s expansion); , (holding that the City had standing to challenge the constitutionality of a statute allowing certain communities within the same county as the City to incorporate as towns without the City’s consent).
City of Tucson v. Consumers for Retail Choice 5 P.2d 934 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
City of Tucson v. Consumers for Retail Choice 5 P.2d 934 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Co., -70 , -74 (1994) (little or no weight given to nonleg-islator’s comments made in committee hearings unless there are guarantees that statements reflect legislators’ views); , (“[A] single member of the legislature is not able to testify regarding the intent of the legislature in passing a law.”).
State v. Bonnewell 2 P.3d 682 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Bonnewell 2 P.3d 682 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
In Re Cesar R. 4 P.3d 980 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
In Re Cesar R. 4 P.3d 980 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Town of Miami v. City of Globe 985 P.2d 1035 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Town of Miami v. City of Globe 985 P.2d 1035 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
(holding Tucson had standing to challenge incorporation of neighboring Tortolita because Tucson had direct stake in demanding proper enforcement of statute protecting municipalities from potential problems arising from existence of many separate governmental entities in a limited geographical