Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Armory Park Neighborhood Ass'n v. Episcopal Community Services, 712 P.2d 914.

120 citing documents.

Stewart v. Stewart 286 P.3d 1089 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Stewart v. Stewart 286 P.3d 1089 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Scenic Arizona v. City of Phoenix Board of Adjustment 268 P.3d 370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Scenic Arizona v. City of Phoenix Board of Adjustment 268 P.3d 370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
1, 6, (noting that representational standing may be based on members of the organization having “standing to sue in their own right”); Center Bay Gardens v. City of Tempe, 214 Aiz.
Yavapai-Apache Nation v. Fabritz-Whitney 260 P.3d 299 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Yavapai-Apache Nation v. Fabritz-Whitney 260 P.3d 299 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
CONGRESS ELEMENTARY SCH. DIST. v. Warren 251 P.3d 395 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
CONGRESS ELEMENTARY SCH. DIST. v. Warren 251 P.3d 395 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
¶ 19 , our supreme court defined a public nuisance as "any unreasonable interference with a right common to the general public."
Baier v. Mayer Unified School District 232 P.3d 747 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Baier v. Mayer Unified School District 232 P.3d 747 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
State v. Western Union Financial Services, Inc. 199 P.3d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Western Union Financial Services, Inc. 199 P.3d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Strawberry Water Co. v. Paulsen 207 P.3d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Strawberry Water Co. v. Paulsen 207 P.3d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Home Builders Ass'n of Cent. Ariz. v. Kard 199 P.3d 629 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Home Builders Ass'n of Cent. Ariz. v. Kard 199 P.3d 629 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Svcs., , see Ariz. Const, art. VI.
Mayer Unified School and Gadsen Elementary School v. Winkleman, Az State Land Dept... Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Mayer Unified School and Gadsen Elementary School v. Winkleman, Az State Land Dept... Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. 181 P.3d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. 181 P.3d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
in Ariz., , Spur Indus., Inc. v. Del E. Webb Dev.
Nolan v. Starlight Pines Homeowners Ass'n 167 P.3d 1277 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Nolan v. Starlight Pines Homeowners Ass'n 167 P.3d 1277 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Karbal v. Arizona Department of Revenue 158 P.3d 243 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Karbal v. Arizona Department of Revenue 158 P.3d 243 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Home Builders Association v. City of Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Home Builders Association v. City of Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
in Ariz., -6, -19 (1985); State v. Direct Sellers Ass’n, (trade association had standing to contest statute’s constitutionality in declaratory judgment action).
Center Bay Gardens, L.L.C. v. City of Tempe City Council 153 P.3d 374 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Center Bay Gardens, L.L.C. v. City of Tempe City Council 153 P.3d 374 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
in Ariz., , (finding standing for residents to seek damages and injunctive relief “because the acts allegedly committed by the patrons of the neighborhood center affected the residents’ use and enjoyment of their real property, a damage special in nature and different in kind from that experienced by
Fillmore v. MARICOPA WATER PROCESSING 120 P.3d 697 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Fillmore v. MARICOPA WATER PROCESSING 120 P.3d 697 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Bennett v. Brownlow 119 P.3d 460 Ariz. 2005
Bennett v. Brownlow 119 P.3d 460 Ariz. 2005
Fernandez v. Takata Seat Belts, Inc. 108 P.3d 917 Ariz. 2005
Fernandez v. Takata Seat Belts, Inc. 108 P.3d 917 Ariz. 2005
in Ariz., (citing State v. B Bar Enters., P.2d 978 (1982)), and thus, when addressing questions of standing “we are confronted only with questions of prudential or judicial restraint.” Id.
Aegis of Arizona, L.L.C. v. Town of Marana 81 P.3d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Aegis of Arizona, L.L.C. v. Town of Marana 81 P.3d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Bennett v. Napolitano 81 P.3d 311 Ariz. 2003
Bennett v. Napolitano 81 P.3d 311 Ariz. 2003
State v. Thompson 34 P.3d 382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
State v. Thompson 34 P.3d 382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
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
¶ 11 The issue of standing is not jurisdictional in Arizona but, rather, “solely a rule of judicial restraint.” Woods, 191 Ariz. at 526 n. 2, 959 P.2d at 397 n. 2; see Armory Park Neighborhood Ass’n v. Episcopal Community Servs., , Alliance Morana, 191 Ariz. at 289, 955 P.2d at 45 .
U.S. West Communications, Inc. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 8 P.3d 396 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
U.S. West Communications, Inc. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 8 P.3d 396 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Nevertheless, Arizona courts normally impose standing requirements as a matter of judicial restraint to ensure that their decisions are not moot or merely advisory, “and that the issues will be fully developed by true adversaries.” Armory Park Neighborhood Ass’n v. Episcopal Community Servs.
Blanchard v. Show Low Planning & Zoning Commission 993 P.2d 1078 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Blanchard v. Show Low Planning & Zoning Commission 993 P.2d 1078 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
(action on behalf of neighborhood affected by meal center for indigents).
Town of Miami v. City of Globe 985 P.2d 1035 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Town of Miami v. City of Globe 985 P.2d 1035 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Armory Park Neighborhood Ass’n v. Episcopal Community Servs., , State v. B Bar Enterprises
Sears v. Hull 961 P.2d 1013 Ariz. 1998
Sears v. Hull 961 P.2d 1013 Ariz. 1998