Cited by

A party is indispensable if “no final judgment or decree could be entered, doing justice between the parties actually before the court and without injuriously affecting the rights of others not brought into the action.”

Accordingly, this Court has consistently applied the rule that “[p]ublic funds are to be expended only for ‘public purposes’ and cannot be used to foster or promote the purely private or personal interests of any individual.” See

cannot be used to foster or promote the purely private or personal interests of any individual.” ()); Turken, 223 Ariz. at 346 ¶ 10 (noting the Gift Clause “was designed primarily to prevent the use of public funds .

It prevents “depletion of the public treasury or inflation of public debt by engagement in non-public enterprise[,]” ensuring that public funds are not “used to foster or promote the purely private or personal interests of any individual.”

v. Nelson, (rejecting Gift Clause attack on public agency’s issuance of industrial development bonds); 6 SCHIRES, et al. v. CARLAT, et al. Decision of the Court (finding public purpose in constructing a water line serving just one factory)); (city acted with a public purp

v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, ¶ 21 (App. 2007) ().

Stated differently, the test of indispensability “is whether the absent person’s interest in the controversy is such that no final judgment or decree could be entered, doing justice between the parties actually before the court and without injuriously affecting the rights of others not brought into the action.”

of 10 Pinal County v. Nelson, 109 Ariz. 368, (rejecting Gift Clause attack on issuance of industrial development bonds by public agency); Town of Gila Bend v. Walled Lake Door Co., 107 Ariz. 545, (finding public purpose in constructing water line serving only one factory).

The purpose behind article 9, section 7 is to avoid the “depletion of the public treasury or inflation of public debt by engagement in non-public enterprise.” , , see also City of Tempe v. Pilot Properties, Inc., 22 Ariz.App.

1 Given this posture of the review litigation to be conducted in the superior court, it is our opinion that the contractor/licensee falls within the definition of an “indispensable party” , : “An indispensable party ...

A reading of Rule 19(a), supra, in conjunction with the facts of this case and the appropriate decisions of the Supreme Court of Arizona, e. g., , , , make it clear that Craig was not an indispensable party to the initial litigation between the Millers and Crouse.

at page 555 (1971), stated; “An indispensable party, under Rule 19, Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S., is one who has such an interest in the subject matter that a final decree cannot be made without either affecting his interest or leaving the controversy in such condition that a final determination

Thus, , the city contended that *361 the building of a waterline to provide fire protection primarily to a private business was in violation of the constitutional provision under discussion here.