Cited by

Owners Ass’n, 531, ¶¶ 11, 18 (App. 2012); ¶ 8 (App. 2003) (The only adequate remedy for an immediate possession order is through special action relief.).

Compare Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469, 483–90 (2005) (upholding the taking of a working-class neighborhood to facilitate amenities related to a private business), ¶ 12 (App. 2003) (“Taking one person’s property for another person’s private use is plainly prohibited .

(“It is the court’s duty to protect constitutional rights.”); ¶ 11 (App. 2003) (“The framers of our Constitution understood that one of the basic responsibilities of government is to protect private property interests.”).

§§ 12-1112; 12-1131; ¶ 14 n.1 (App. 2003).

–60 (1914) (stating that court decisions construing takings provisions in the federal and other state constitutions “are not controlling in this state, and, indeed, lend us but little aid” in interpreting art. 2, § 17); ¶ 20 (App. 2003) (“The federal constitution provides considerably less protection against eminent domain than our Constitution provides.”).

Compare Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469, 488–89 (2005) (holding that the Fifth Amendment’s “public use” provision requires only a public benefit), –30 ¶¶ 21–26 (App. 2003) (vigorously enforcing the public use requirement under article 2, section 17 of the Arizona Constitution).

n.1, ¶ 14, n.1 (App. 2003) (explaining that, under analogous circumstances, the court of appeals will follow the more recent supreme court opinion).

Improvement & Power Dist., P.2d 1275 (1974); - 71, -29 (1971); (special action provides only relief from order of immediate possession).

Article 2, Section 17, of the Arizona Constitution, Arizona’s analogue to the Takings Clause, provides in relevant part: "No private property shall be taken or damaged for public or private use without just compensation having first been made[.]” Although Arizona’s constitutional provision is not necessarily coextensive with its federal counterpart, ¶ 20 , Bonito does not contend that the state constitution affords him greater protection or applies differently under the circumstances of this cas

Turken, 220 Ariz. at 469 ¶ 37 n.17, 207 P.3d at 722 n.17; P.3d 898 (App. 2003) (addressing “public use” under Article 2, Section 17).

-31, ¶¶ 10-26 , -05 (App.2003) (explaining factors to consider in defining public use).

Court of Tempe, , -39 (1962); , (discussing constitutional requirement of “public use”).

6 ¶11 At oral argument, Clear Channel also relied on Kelo v. City of New London, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S. Ct. 2655 (2005), P.3d 898 (App. 2003), to support its contention that the state’s “use” of property, which is exempt from local regulation, is not limited to physical “use.” It argued that exempt state uses can include the payment of compensation and entitle a new owner to the same exemption from local regulation.

¶ 8 , (petitioner’s only adequate remedy from an order granting respondent immediate possession of petitioner’s commercial property is through special action).

625 , 15 L.Ed.2d 535 ; State v. Robinson, 89 * P.2d 474 ; , ; , .