Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite City of Scottsdale v. McDowell Mountain Irrigation & Drainage District, 483 P.2d 532.

36 citing documents.

LYONS v. PHOENIX Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
LYONS v. PHOENIX Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
& Drainage Dist., ), that liberal construction is limited by “whether the interest sought to be protected by the complainant is arguably within the zone of interests to be protected or regulated by the statute,” id.
David Welch v. Cochise Board of Supervisors Ariz. 2021
David Welch v. Cochise Board of Supervisors Ariz. 2021
Pawn 1st, LLC v. City of Phoenix 294 P.3d 147 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Pawn 1st, LLC v. City of Phoenix 294 P.3d 147 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
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
& Drainage Dist., , (considering whether appellants qualified as “any person affected” under AR.S.
Hohokam Irrigation & Drainage District v. Arizona Public Service Co. 64 P.3d 836 Ariz. 2003
Hohokam Irrigation & Drainage District v. Arizona Public Service Co. 64 P.3d 836 Ariz. 2003
We interpreted this very language in City of Scottsdale v. McDowell Mountain Irrigation and Drainage Dist., stating that “the power to engage in activities of municipalities generally is proper only when acting pursuant to the purpose of irrigating arid lands.”
State v. Estrada 34 P.3d 356 Ariz. 2001
State v. Estrada 34 P.3d 356 Ariz. 2001
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 stat
State Ex Rel. Department of Economic Security v. McEvoy 955 P.2d 988 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State Ex Rel. Department of Economic Security v. McEvoy 955 P.2d 988 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
(statutes that relate to the same subject matter are to be read together and harmonized so as to give effect to all provisions); , (in construing rules of court, we apply the same rules of construction as are used in
City of Tucson v. Woods 959 P.2d 394 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
City of Tucson v. Woods 959 P.2d 394 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
and Drainage Dist, , (city was a “person affected” by the formation of an improvement district that might impede city’s expansion and thus had standing to challenge such formation).
Maricopa County v. Maricopa County Municipal Water Conservation District No. 1 830 P.2d 846 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Maricopa County v. Maricopa County Municipal Water Conservation District No. 1 830 P.2d 846 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Hunt Investment Co. v. Eliot 742 P.2d 858 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Hunt Investment Co. v. Eliot 742 P.2d 858 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Rural/Metro Fire Dept., Inc. v. Pima County 596 P.2d 389 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Rural/Metro Fire Dept., Inc. v. Pima County 596 P.2d 389 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Burton v. City of Tucson, supra; P.2d 532 (1971).
State v. LeMatty 590 P.2d 449 Ariz. 1979
State v. LeMatty 590 P.2d 449 Ariz. 1979
City of Scottsdale v. McDowell Mountain Irrigation & Drainage Dist.
Donaghey v. Attorney General 584 P.2d 557 Ariz. 1978
Donaghey v. Attorney General 584 P.2d 557 Ariz. 1978
Ordway v. Pickrell 543 P.2d 444 Ariz. 1975
Ordway v. Pickrell 543 P.2d 444 Ariz. 1975
Arizona State Tax Commission v. Reiser 512 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1973
Arizona State Tax Commission v. Reiser 512 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1973
Arizona State Highway Comm’n v. Nelson
Campbell v. SUPERIOR CT, IN & FOR CTY. OF MARICOPA 501 P.2d 463 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Campbell v. SUPERIOR CT, IN & FOR CTY. OF MARICOPA 501 P.2d 463 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
and Drainage Dist., , 483 P,2d 532 (1971) ; In re Maricopa County Appeal, 15 Ariz.App.
Santa Cruz Irrigation District v. City of Tucson 494 P.2d 24 Ariz. 1972
Santa Cruz Irrigation District v. City of Tucson 494 P.2d 24 Ariz. 1972
It is obvious that the service of domestic water is incidental to the primary purpose of providing water by the District for irrigation, City of Scottsdale v. McDowell Mountain Irrigation and Drainage District , but that it is one of the fundamental purposes for the incorporation of cities and towns.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by