Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Arkules v. BD. OF ADJUST. OF PARADISE VALLEY, 728 P.2d 657.

38 citing documents.

Son Silver v. Sedona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Son Silver v. Sedona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
of Adjustment, (“The Board of Adjustment, though structured much like an administrative agency, acts in a quasi-judicial capacity.”).
Legacy Foundation Action v. Citizens Clean Election Ariz. 2018
Legacy Foundation Action v. Citizens Clean Election Ariz. 2018
of Adjustment, (concerning a special action challenge to an allegedly void board of adjustment decision); Nat’l Inv.
Pawn 1st LLC v. City of Phoenix/jachimek 399 P.3d 94 Ariz. 2017
Pawn 1st LLC v. City of Phoenix/jachimek 399 P.3d 94 Ariz. 2017
of Adjustment of Paradise Valley, (holding that a board has “no powers except those granted by the statutes creating it,” and “its power is restricted to that granted by the zoning ordinance in accordance with the statute”).
Adams v. Giguere Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Adams v. Giguere Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
of Adjustment of Paradise Valley, ).
Legacy v. Citizens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Legacy v. Citizens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶11 Although section 12-902(B) does not explicitly allow a party to file a late appeal questioning jurisdiction, in which this court stated that “[u]nder the provisions of A.R.S.
Levine v. phoenix/suns Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Levine v. phoenix/suns Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
of Adjustment of Paradise Valley
Pawn 1st, LLC v. City of Phoenix 373 P.3d 556 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Pawn 1st, LLC v. City of Phoenix 373 P.3d 556 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
of Adjustment of Town of Paradise Valley
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
Dowling v. Stapley 211 P.3d 1235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Dowling v. Stapley 211 P.3d 1235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
of Adjustment of the Town of Paradise Valley, -40 , -59 (App.1986), is not helpful.
Austin Shea (Arizona) 7th Street & Van Buren, L.L.C. v. City of Phoenix 142 P.3d 693 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Austin Shea (Arizona) 7th Street & Van Buren, L.L.C. v. City of Phoenix 142 P.3d 693 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Burns v. Davis 993 P.2d 1119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Burns v. Davis 993 P.2d 1119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
The trial court cited two cases to support its legal finding of absolute privilege: Allan and Allan Arts Ltd. v. Rosenblum, 201 A.D.2d 136 , 615 N.Y.S.2d 410 (1994)
Shelby School v. Arizona State Board of Education 962 P.2d 230 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Shelby School v. Arizona State Board of Education 962 P.2d 230 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
¶ 35 It is true, as Appellants argue, that “the powers and duties of an administrative agency are measured and limited by the statute creating it.”
Rivera v. City of Phoenix 925 P.2d 741 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Rivera v. City of Phoenix 925 P.2d 741 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
530, 535 , , *603 247 (1974)
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
Neal v. City of Kingman 810 P.2d 572 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Neal v. City of Kingman 810 P.2d 572 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
M & M Auto Storage Pool, Inc. v. Chemical Waste Management, Inc. 791 P.2d 665 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
M & M Auto Storage Pool, Inc. v. Chemical Waste Management, Inc. 791 P.2d 665 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Murphy v. Town of Chino Valley 789 P.2d 1072 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Murphy v. Town of Chino Valley 789 P.2d 1072 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
See, , , (“The Board of Adjustment, though structured much like an administrative agency, acts in a quasi-judicial capacity”).
Arkules v. Board of Adjustment 780 P.2d 431 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Arkules v. Board of Adjustment 780 P.2d 431 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Boyce v. City of Scottsdale 756 P.2d 934 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Boyce v. City of Scottsdale 756 P.2d 934 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Division 2 of this court summarized the rule and noted its application to boards of adjustment.