Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Wait v. City of Scottsdale, 618 P.2d 601.

32 citing documents.

Town of Marana v. Pima County 281 P.3d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Town of Marana v. Pima County 281 P.3d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
As such, it was a legislative decision, and neither their motives nor the reasons presented to them for their action “are proper subjects for judicial inquiry.”
Emmett McLoughlin Realty, Inc. v. Pima County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Emmett McLoughlin Realty, Inc. v. Pima County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Redelsperger v. City of Avondale 87 P.3d 843 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Redelsperger v. City of Avondale 87 P.3d 843 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
In an attempt to infer that the two are the same, , wherein our Supreme Court stated that: Zoning is much more than mere classification of a particular piece of property as appellants would have us believe.
City of Tucson v. Pima County 19 P.3d 650 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
City of Tucson v. Pima County 19 P.3d 650 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
(“Since we hold that the decision to rezone is a legislative one, neither the motives of the councilmen in denying the application for rezoning nor the reasons that were spread before them to induce the denial of the rezoning request are proper subjects for judicial inquiry.”); Austin v
State v. Jones 4 P.3d 345 Ariz. 2000
State v. Jones 4 P.3d 345 Ariz. 2000
State v. Doerr 969 P.2d 1168 Ariz. 1998
State v. Doerr 969 P.2d 1168 Ariz. 1998
Mehlhorn v. Pima County 978 P.2d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Mehlhorn v. Pima County 978 P.2d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Fritz v. City of Kingman 957 P.2d 337 Ariz. 1998
Fritz v. City of Kingman 957 P.2d 337 Ariz. 1998
(even a city’s conditional approval of an application for rezoning is subject to referendum); , (“It is well settled that the passage of an original zoning ordinance is the exercise of a legislative function.”).
Fidelity National Title Insurance v. Pima County 831 P.2d 426 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Fidelity National Title Insurance v. Pima County 831 P.2d 426 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
Jachimek v. Superior Court 819 P.2d 487 Ariz. 1991
Jachimek v. Superior Court 819 P.2d 487 Ariz. 1991
The City also argues that zoning involves more than the mere classification of property, , and that cities "may control the location of ...
Lane v. City of Phoenix 816 P.2d 934 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Lane v. City of Phoenix 816 P.2d 934 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Pioneer Trust Co. v. Pima County 811 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1991
Pioneer Trust Co. v. Pima County 811 P.2d 22 Ariz. 1991
Haines v. City of Phoenix 727 P.2d 339 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Haines v. City of Phoenix 727 P.2d 339 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
United States Fire Insurance v. Gentile 712 P.2d 436 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
United States Fire Insurance v. Gentile 712 P.2d 436 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
“A trial judge has considerable discretion in determining the relevancy and admissibility of evidence.”
Corrigan v. City of Scottsdale 720 P.2d 528 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Corrigan v. City of Scottsdale 720 P.2d 528 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Bartolomeo v. Town of Paradise Valley 631 P.2d 564 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Bartolomeo v. Town of Paradise Valley 631 P.2d 564 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981