Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Rubi v. 49'er Country Club Estates, Inc., 440 P.2d 44.

38 citing documents.

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
Rubi v. 49’er Country Club Estates, Inc.
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
Rubi v. 49’er Country Club Estates, Inc.
Redington Ranch Associates v. Redman 737 P.2d 808 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Redington Ranch Associates v. Redman 737 P.2d 808 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
As stated in Rubi v. 49’er Country Club Estates, Inc., , “The general purpose of zoning laws is to promote the general welfare by providing ...
RANCH 57 v. City of Yuma 731 P.2d 113 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
RANCH 57 v. City of Yuma 731 P.2d 113 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
We do not sit as “super-zoning commissions.” Rubi v. 49’er Country Club Estates, Inc.
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
238, 240 , “To establish that an ordinance is confiscatory, it must be shown that the restrictions preclude use of the property for ‘any purpose to which it is reasonably established.’ Rubi v. 49’er Country Club Estates, Inc., , ” Klensin v. City of Tucson, 10 Ariz.App.
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
The limited function of the judiciary in zoning matters is reflected by the following quote from Rubi v. 49’er Country Club Estates, Inc., -412 , -48 (1968): “With the wisdom or lack of wisdom of the determination we are not concerned.
New Pueblo Constructors, Inc. v. Pima County 586 P.2d 199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
New Pueblo Constructors, Inc. v. Pima County 586 P.2d 199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Rubi v. 49’er Country Club Estates, , .
Owens v. GLENARM LAND COMPANY, INC. 539 P.2d 544 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Owens v. GLENARM LAND COMPANY, INC. 539 P.2d 544 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
See Rubi v. 49’er Country Club Estates, Inc., , City of Phoenix v. Superior Court, County of Maricopa
City of Phoenix v. Oglesby 537 P.2d 934 Ariz. 1975
City of Phoenix v. Oglesby 537 P.2d 934 Ariz. 1975
399 , ; Rubi v. 49’er Country Club Estates, Inc.
City of Tempe v. Rasor 536 P.2d 239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
City of Tempe v. Rasor 536 P.2d 239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
The limited function of the judiciary in zoning matters is reflected by the following quote from Rubi v. 49 er Country Club Estates, Inc., -412 , -48 (1968): “With the wisdom or lack of wisdom of the determination we are not concerned.
City of Phoenix v. Beall 524 P.2d 1314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
City of Phoenix v. Collins 524 P.2d 1318 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
City of Phoenix v. Collins 524 P.2d 1318 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
399 , Rubi v. 49er Country Club Estates, Inc.
City of Phoenix v. Beall 524 P.2d 1314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Hart v. Bayless Investment & Trading Company, , , Rubi v. 49er Country Club Estates, Inc., 2 , (petition for review denied) ; Courson v. City of Tucson, 10 Ariz.App.
Arizona State Liquor Board v. Jacobs 511 P.2d 179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Arizona State Liquor Board v. Jacobs 511 P.2d 179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Just as the courts cannot sit as super zoning boards, Rubi v. 49’er Country Club Estates, Inc., , nor as a super school board, Kelly v. Martin, 16 Ariz.App.
City of Phoenix v. Price 500 P.2d 1132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
City of Phoenix v. Price 500 P.2d 1132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
*146 Here, as in Rubi v. 49’er Country Club Estates, Inc., , : “Of critical importance ...
Peabody v. City of Phoenix 485 P.2d 565 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Peabody v. City of Phoenix 485 P.2d 565 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Rubi v. 49’er Country Club Estates, Inc.
Hawes v. Cooper 480 P.2d 1005 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Hawes v. Cooper 480 P.2d 1005 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Rubi v. 49’ER Country Club Estates, Inc.
Klensin v. City of Tucson 459 P.2d 316 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Klensin v. City of Tucson 459 P.2d 316 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Rubi v. 49’er Country Club Estates, Inc., , Courson v. City of Tucson, 10 Ariz.App.
Courson v. City of Tucson 457 P.2d 346 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Courson v. City of Tucson 457 P.2d 346 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
272 P. 923 (1928); Rubi v. 49’er Country Club Estates, Inc.
City of Phoenix v. Burke 452 P.2d 722 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
City of Phoenix v. Burke 452 P.2d 722 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
This is the position accepted by the judges in Division Two of this Court in Rubi v. 49’er Country Club Estates, Inc.