DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite City of Tempe v. Outdoor Systems, Inc., 32 P.3d 31.

74 citing documents.

  • Mohave v. Messner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
  • Mohave v. Messner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    Likewise, issues addressing the “interpretation of statutes or ordinances are questions of law subject to this [C]ourt’s de novo review.” City of Tempe v. Outdoor Sys., Inc., ¶ 7 (App. 2001).
  • Contreras Farms v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Contreras Farms v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    We review de novo the court’s grant of summary judgment, ¶ 11 (2011), as well as the interpretation of statutes and ordinances, City of Tempe v. Outdoor Sys., Inc., ¶ 7 (App. 2001).
  • Yf Group v. Farmer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Yf Group v. Farmer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    City of Tempe v. Outdoor Sys., Inc., ¶ 14 (App. 2001).
  • Best Western v. Oakland Park Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Best Western v. Oakland Park Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    See City of Tempe v. Outdoor Sys., Inc., ¶ 14 (App. 2001) (appellate court may affirm summary judgment ruling if it is correct for any reason).
  • Goshkarian v. McGovern Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Goshkarian v. McGovern Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    See City of Tempe v. Outdoor Sys., Inc., ¶ 14 (App. 2001) (citing Guo v. Maricopa Cty.
  • Brush & Nib v. Phoenix 418 P.3d 426 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Brush & Nib v. Phoenix 418 P.3d 426 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    See City of Tempe v. Outdoor Sys., Inc., ¶ 12 (App. 2001) (“We need not invalidate the entire Ordinance if the invalid portion 21 BRUSH & NIB, et al. v. PHOENIX Opinion of the Court can be severed from the remaining valid portions of the Ordinance.”) (citing Ran
  • Singh v. Malhotra Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Singh v. Malhotra Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    hen an appellant has not shown per the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, that “there exists evidence of genuine issues for trial,” and when the trial court was correct for any reason—either argued below or supported by the evidence, see City of Tempe v. Outdoor Sys., Inc., ¶ 14 (App. 2001).
  • Sign Here v. Chavez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Sign Here v. Chavez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    See City of Tempe v. Outdoor Sys., Inc., ¶ 14 (App. 2001).
  • White Mountain Health Center, Inc. v. Maricopa County 386 P.3d 416 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • White Mountain Health Center, Inc. v. Maricopa County 386 P.3d 416 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Mathis, 231 Ariz. at 109, ¶ 17 , ; see also City of Tempe v. Outdoor Sys., Inc., ¶ 14 , (“We view the facts de novo and in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.”).
  • Vazirani v. Annexus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Vazirani v. Annexus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    We will affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment when an appellant has not shown “there exists evidence of genuine issues for trial,” and when the trial court was correct for any reason argued below and supported by the record, see City of Tempe v. Outdoor Systems, Inc., ¶ 14 (App. 2001) (“We may affirm summary judgment even if the trial court reached the right result for the wrong reason.”) (citation omitted).
  • Denmon v. Safarian Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Denmon v. Safarian Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    We review the constitutionality of a statute de novo and “only if it is necessary to resolve the issue to decide the case.” City of Tempe v. Outdoor Sys., Inc., ¶ 7 (App. 2001) (citations omitted).
  • Yang v. Az Chinese News Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Yang v. Az Chinese News Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    City of Tempe v. Outdoor Sys., Inc., ¶ 14
  • Craven v. Huppenthal 338 P.3d 324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Craven v. Huppenthal 338 P.3d 324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    City of Tempe v. Outdoor Sys., Inc., ¶ 14
  • Mohr v. Murphy Elementary Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Mohr v. Murphy Elementary Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    10 MOHR v. MURPHY ELEMENTARY et al. Decision of the Court Tempe v. Outdoor Sys., Inc., ¶ 14
  • Ponderosa v. Coconino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Ponderosa v. Coconino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    Thomas and King, ¶ 11, see City of Tempe v. Outdoor Sys., Inc., ¶ 9, (“When an ordinance regulates an area that is also regulated by state statute, the ordinance may parallel the statute or even reach beyond the parameters of the statute so long as the ordinance does not conflict with the statute.”).
  • Newman v. Cornerstone National Insurance 322 P.3d 194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Newman v. Cornerstone National Insurance 322 P.3d 194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    City of Tempe v. Outdoor Sys., Inc., ¶ 14
  • Pi'ikea, LLC v. Williamson 321 P.3d 449 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
  • Pi'ikea, LLC v. Williamson 321 P.3d 449 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
    See City of Tempe v. Outdoor Sys., Inc.
  • Weitz Co. v. Heth 314 P.3d 569 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
  • Weitz Co. v. Heth 314 P.3d 569 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
    Imaging, Ltd., ¶ 2 , and we may affirm a summary judgment if it is correct for any reason, City of Tempe v. Outdoor Sys., Inc., ¶ 14
  • Centennial Development Group, LLC v. Lawyer's Title Insurance 310 P.3d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
  • Centennial Development Group, LLC v. Lawyer's Title Insurance 310 P.3d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
    City of Tempe v. Outdoor Sys., Inc., ¶ 14
  • Engler v. Gulf Interstate Engineering, Inc. 258 P.3d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • Engler v. Gulf Interstate Engineering, Inc. 258 P.3d 304 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
    See City of Tempe v. Outdoor Sys., Inc., ¶ 14 , (citing Guo v. Maricopa County Med.
  • Clusiau v. Clusiau Enterprises, Inc. 236 P.3d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • Clusiau v. Clusiau Enterprises, Inc. 236 P.3d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    City of Tempe v. Outdoor Sys., Inc., ¶ 14
  • Dreamland Villa Community Club, Inc. v. Raimey 226 P.3d 411 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • Dreamland Villa Community Club, Inc. v. Raimey 226 P.3d 411 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    City of Tempe v. Outdoor Sys., Inc., ¶ 14
  • Federico v. MARIC 226 P.3d 403 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • Federico v. MARIC 226 P.3d 403 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    City of Tempe v. Outdoor Sys., Inc., ¶ 14
  • State of Arizona v. Payne Nelson Daniels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
  • State v. Payne 225 P.3d 1131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
  • State v. Payne 225 P.3d 1131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
    We address appellants’ statutory arguments first “because courts should decide cases on nonconstitutional grounds if possible and should determine a[n] [ordinance’s] constitutionality only if absolutely necessary.” , see also City of Tempe v. Outdoor Sys., Inc., , (“[T]he constitutionality of a statute or ordinance becomes an issue only if it is necessary to resolve the issue to decide the ease.”).
  • State of Arizona v. Payne Nelson Daniels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
    We address appellants’ statutory arguments first “because courts should decide cases on nonconstitutional grounds if possible and should determine a[n] [ordinance’s] constitutionality only if absolutely necessary.” see also City of Tempe v. Outdoor Sys., Inc., (“[T]he constitutionality of a statute or ordinance becomes an issue only if it is necessary to resolve the issue to decide the case.”).