Cited by

In Ariz., (quoting Johnson, 51 Ariz. at 123).

in Ariz., (“Our court of appeals has explained that these considerations require at a minimum that each party possess an interest in the outcome”).

in Ariz., see Ariz. Const. art. VI; U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl.

in Ariz., -5 (1985) (explaining that a nuisance is an interference in others’ use and enjoyment of land).

in Ariz. , , 6, , 919 (1985) ).

in Ariz., (discussing generally the torts of public and 12 QUIROZ V. ALCOA Opinion of the Court private nuisance); (holding that proof showing smoke from company

in Ariz., (citations omitted).

in Ariz., (recognizing that a lawful business may still be enjoined, and affirming an injunction prohibiting a church from operating a free food distribution program, despite remedial efforts by the church, because the program had caused an increase in trespassing and criminal activity, and otherwi

in Ariz., , )); see also Armory Park Neighborhood Ass’n, 148 Ariz. at 6 , 712 P.2d at 919 (“We have previously determined that the question of standing in Arizona is not a constitutional mandate since we have no counterpart to the ‘case or controversy' requirement of the federal constitution.” (citing