Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Levitz v. State, 613 P.2d 1259.

32 citing documents.

Pima v. Tucson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Pima v. Tucson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
(holding that “an ordinance enacted without substantial compliance with [applicable] statutory requirements is 7 PIMA v. TUCSON Decision of the Court void”).
Shao v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Shao v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
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
22 Accordingly, we affirm the superior court’s summary judgment based on this provision and do not address whether limiting MMDs to IND-3 zones violates the AMMA 23 ¶ 65 Zoning regulation is “based upon the police power of the state” and, generally speaking, “a matter of statewide concern.” , (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
City of Scottsdale v. State 352 P.3d 936 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
City of Scottsdale v. State 352 P.3d 936 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
For example, -05 , -61 (1980), the Arizona Supreme Court held that *472 the regulation of advertising signs is not purely a local matter and that a charter city’s advertising sign regulation is not exempt from State regulation requirements.
City of Tucson v. Grezaffi 23 P.3d 675 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
City of Tucson v. Grezaffi 23 P.3d 675 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
arious contentions that Code § 11-19 is invalid as applied to her because she allegedly was operating a “private club” rather than a public restaurant when the City cited her; that the evidence presented at the City Court hearing was insufficient to support the magistrate’s ruling, , overruled on other grounds, , or that the City’s ordinances that govern appointment and retention of city magistrates are invalid and deprived her of “a fair hearing from an impartial tribunal.” 2 And, although Grez
Motel 6 Operating Ltd. Partnership v. City of Flagstaff 991 P.2d 272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Motel 6 Operating Ltd. Partnership v. City of Flagstaff 991 P.2d 272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Blanchard v. Show Low Planning & Zoning Commission 993 P.2d 1078 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
City of Tucson v. Whiteco Metrocom, Inc. 983 P.2d 759 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
City of Tucson v. Whiteco Metrocom, Inc. 983 P.2d 759 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Whiteco Outdoor Advertising v. City of Tucson 972 P.2d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Whiteco Outdoor Advertising v. City of Tucson 972 P.2d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
when a municipality does regulate signs it [must] be done as zoning regulations and conform to the master plan established by the City.”
Schwarz v. City of Glendale 950 P.2d 167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Schwarz v. City of Glendale 950 P.2d 167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Manning v. Reilly, 2 Ariz.App.
City of Glendale v. Aldabbagh 928 P.2d 659 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
City of Glendale v. Aldabbagh 928 P.2d 659 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Hamilton v. City of Mesa 916 P.2d 1136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Hamilton v. City of Mesa 916 P.2d 1136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
City of Mesa v. Smith Co. of Arizona, Inc. 816 P.2d 939 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
City of Mesa v. Smith Co. of Arizona, Inc. 816 P.2d 939 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
(because zoning is a matter of statewide concern, charter cities, must comply with Arizona statutes when adopting zoning ordinances).
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
City of Scottsdale v. Scottsdale Associated Merchants, Inc.
City of Prescott v. Town of Chino Valley 790 P.2d 263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
City of Prescott v. Town of Chino Valley 790 P.2d 263 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
401 , the city of Tucson was permitted to impose an occupational tax on attorneys despite the fact that the state possessed the exclusive power to regulate and license persons entitled to practice law.” , overruled on other grounds
Gannett Outdoor Co. v. City of Mesa 768 P.2d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Gannett Outdoor Co. v. City of Mesa 768 P.2d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Haines v. City of Phoenix 727 P.2d 339 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986