Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Manning v. Reilly, 408 P.2d 414.

56 citing documents.

DAVIS v. PRESCOTT Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
DAVIS v. PRESCOTT Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Under the UDJA, a controversy involving a municipal ordinance is justiciable when there are “specific adverse claims, based upon present rather than future or speculative facts, which are ripe for judicial determination.” Mills, 253 Ariz. at 423–24 ¶ 25 (a claim is justiciable under the UDJA when facts in a complaint “’show a present existing controversy which permits the court to adjudicate any present rights[.]’” ().
Santa Cruz County, Alma Schultz v. Audit USA, John Brakey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
Santa Cruz County, Alma Schultz v. Audit USA, John Brakey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
An action seeking declaratory relief must raise one or more “specific adverse claims, based upon present rather than future or speculative facts, which are ripe for judicial determination.”
Greg Mills v. Abtr Ariz. 2022
Greg Mills v. Abtr Ariz. 2022
.”); Moulton, 205 Ariz. at 513 ¶ 20 (“We commit to administrative agencies the power to determine constitutional applicability, but we do not commit to administrative agencies the power to determine constitutionality of legislation.“ ()); (“Legal or constitutional questions concerning the validity of a zoning ordinance require judicial determination and are beyond the scope of an administrative body’s powers and authority.”).
Flagstaff v. Desert Mountain Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Flagstaff v. Desert Mountain Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
§§ 49-241 and 12-1831, citing our decisions in Canyon Del Rio Inv’rs, ¶ 22 (App. 2011)
Mills v. Abotr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Mills v. Abotr Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Ariz. State Land Dep’t, 374 (App. 1982) (in affirming finding that public auction of groundwater “from state land was void because the [Arizona State Land] Department could not impose” a reimbursement condition, rejecting administrative exhaustion argument because “[t]he administrative process had indeed run its course so as to allow judicial intervention”); (finding facial challenges to city zoning ordinance “require judicial determination and are beyond the scope of” the city’s administrative
HSBC v. Cluff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
HSBC v. Cluff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
(“The application of the ‘clean hands’ doctrine rests in the sound discretion of the trial court .
Falcone Brothers & Associates, Inc. v. City of Tucson 381 P.3d 276 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Falcone Brothers & Associates, Inc. v. City of Tucson 381 P.3d 276 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
U-Haul v. Tempe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
U-Haul v. Tempe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(one need not exhaust administrative remedies to challenge an invalid zoning ordinance).
Canyon Del Rio Investors, L.L.C. v. City of Flagstaff 258 P.3d 154 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Canyon Del Rio Investors, L.L.C. v. City of Flagstaff 258 P.3d 154 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Neeme Systems Solutions, Inc. v. Spectrum Aeronautical, LLC 250 P.3d 1206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Neeme Systems Solutions, Inc. v. Spectrum Aeronautical, LLC 250 P.3d 1206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Blanchard v. Show Low Planning & Zoning Commission 993 P.2d 1078 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
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
Estate of Bohn v. Waddell 848 P.2d 324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Estate of Bohn v. Waddell 848 P.2d 324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Light & Power Co., , , stand for the proposition that exhaustion of administrative remedies is not required.
American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees v. Lewis 797 P.2d 6 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees v. Lewis 797 P.2d 6 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Ripps v. City of Tucson 736 P.2d 827 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Ripps v. City of Tucson 736 P.2d 827 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Polaris International Metals Corp. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 652 P.2d 1023 Ariz. 1982
Polaris International Metals Corp. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 652 P.2d 1023 Ariz. 1982
Levitz v. State 613 P.2d 1259 Ariz. 1980
Levitz v. State 613 P.2d 1259 Ariz. 1980
P.2d 414 (1965), the Court of Appeals pointed out that the general rule governing enactment of zoning ordinances is that the statutory procedure must be strictly pursued, and an ordinance enacted without substantial compliance with the statutory requirements is void.
Minor v. Cochise County 608 P.2d 313 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Cardon Oil Co. v. City of Phoenix 593 P.2d 656 Ariz. 1979
Cardon Oil Co. v. City of Phoenix 593 P.2d 656 Ariz. 1979
Town of Paradise Valley v. Gulf Leisure Corp. 557 P.2d 532 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Town of Paradise Valley v. Gulf Leisure Corp. 557 P.2d 532 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
See also: P.2d 414 (1965); Van Laten v. City of Chicago, 28 Ill.2d 157 , 190 N.E.2d 717 (1963); Napierkowski v. Township of Gloucester, 29 N.J.
Hyland v. City of Mesa 537 P.2d 936 Ariz. 1975
Hyland v. City of Mesa 537 P.2d 936 Ariz. 1975
Richey v. City of Phoenix 501 P.2d 49 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Richey v. City of Phoenix 501 P.2d 49 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Planned Parenthood Center of Tucson, Inc. v. Marks 497 P.2d 534 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Planned Parenthood Center of Tucson, Inc. v. Marks 497 P.2d 534 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Maricopa County Board of Supervisors v. Bell 51st Investors 495 P.2d 1315 Ariz. 1972
Maricopa County Board of Supervisors v. Bell 51st Investors 495 P.2d 1315 Ariz. 1972
the only difference being that Manning involved the city council, while the instant case concerns the County Board of Supervisors.
Committee for Neighborhood Preservation v. Graham 484 P.2d 226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Committee for Neighborhood Preservation v. Graham 484 P.2d 226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
and this fact is established as to counties by Hart v. Bayless Investment & Trading Company
Fry v. Mayor and City Council of Sierra Vista 466 P.2d 41 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Fry v. Mayor and City Council of Sierra Vista 466 P.2d 41 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Pickrell, , ; 2 McQuillin Municipal Corporations (3rd ed.) § 7.30