Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Flagstaff Vending Co. v. City of Flagstaff, 578 P.2d 985.

34 citing documents.

Vangilder v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Vangilder v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
(recognizing a “legitimate governmental interest in raising revenues”); (“[A] government may validly ‘foster what it conceives to be a beneficent enterprise.’”) (quoting Carmichael v. S. Coal & Coke Co., 301 U.S. 495, 512 (1937)).
City of Tucson v. State 250 P.3d 251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
City of Tucson v. State 250 P.3d 251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Strode, 72 Ariz. at 362-69 , 236 P.2d at 50-54 .
Smith v. Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission 132 P.3d 1187 Ariz. 2006
Smith v. Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission 132 P.3d 1187 Ariz. 2006
Speros v. Yu 83 P.3d 1094 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Speros v. Yu 83 P.3d 1094 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
As authority, , which notes that “the exterior boundary of Flagstaff completely surrounds Northern Arizona University.” We disagree that “exterior boundary” is synonymous with “boundary.” ¶ 27 Flagstaff Vending Co. found the university to be within the exterior boundary of the city, but it is possible
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
Babe's Cabaret v. City of Scottsdale 3 P.3d 1018 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Babe's Cabaret v. City of Scottsdale 3 P.3d 1018 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
However, *102 when the issue is of statewide concern and the legislature has “appropriated the field by enacting a statute pertaining thereto, that statute governs throughout the state, and local ordinances contrary thereto are invalid.” , (quoting Phoenix Respirator & Ambulance Serv., Inc. v. McWilliams, 12 Ariz.App.
Hill v. City of Phoenix 975 P.2d 700 Ariz. 1999
Hill v. City of Phoenix 975 P.2d 700 Ariz. 1999
The court reasoned, pursuant to Flagstaff Vending Co. v. City of Flagstaff , that it was without power to review matters not contained in the notice of appeal, 2 and that plaintiffs failure to name the City constituted more than a technical defect, therefore depriving the court of jurisdiction to review the City judgment.
City of Tucson v. Rineer 971 P.2d 207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
City of Tucson v. Rineer 971 P.2d 207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
is not of local concern, the charter or particular state legislation confers on the city express power to legislate thereon; but where the subject is of statewide concern, and the legislature has appropriated the field by enacting a statute pertaining thereto, that statute governs throughout the state, and local ordinances contrary thereto are invalid.” , quoting Phoenix Respirator & Ambulance Serv., Inc. v. McWilliams, 12 Ariz.App.
Winkle v. City of Tucson 949 P.2d 502 Ariz. 1997
Winkle v. City of Tucson 949 P.2d 502 Ariz. 1997
297 P. 1037 (1931) (court must determine whether subject of legislation is of state or local interest; if it is of local interest, state and city may legislate on same subject).
Hill v. Maricopa County 950 P.2d 1179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Hill v. Maricopa County 950 P.2d 1179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Jett v. City of Tucson 882 P.2d 426 Ariz. 1994
Jett v. City of Tucson 882 P.2d 426 Ariz. 1994
quoting Phoenix Respirator & Ambulance Serv., Inc. v. McWilliams, 12 Ariz.App.
Libra Group, Inc. v. State 805 P.2d 409 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Libra Group, Inc. v. State 805 P.2d 409 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Peabody Coal Co. v. State 761 P.2d 1094 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Peabody Coal Co. v. State 761 P.2d 1094 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
(holding that city excise tax could properly be imposed on sales occurring on a state university campus because the on-campus activity received city police and fire protection).
Browning v. Corbett 734 P.2d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Browning v. Corbett 734 P.2d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
J. C. Penney Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 610 P.2d 471 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
J. C. Penney Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 610 P.2d 471 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
State ex rel. Baumert v. Municipal Court of Phoenix 602 P.2d 827 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
State ex rel. Baumert v. Municipal Court of Phoenix 602 P.2d 827 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
The city argues that where there is authority to act, an ordinance may parallel, , or even go beyond, , State ex rel.
State v. Levy's 580 P.2d 329 Ariz. 1978
State v. Levy's 580 P.2d 329 Ariz. 1978