Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite City of Tucson v. Morgan, 475 P.2d 285.

34 citing documents.

Velazquez v. Fmz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Velazquez v. Fmz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
See Rogers, 233 Ariz. at 266–67, ¶ 13 ( ¶ 12 (Utah 2009)) (“[I]f the action is a true quiet title action, meaning an action merely to ‘quiet an existing title against an adverse or hostile claim of another,’ then the statute of limitations will not bar the claim.”); (“[A] cause of action to quiet title for the removal of the cloud on title is a continuous one and never barred by limitations while the cloud exists.”).
Beau Hodai v. the City of Tucson and Tucson Police Department 365 P.3d 959 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Beau Hodai v. the City of Tucson and Tucson Police Department 365 P.3d 959 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
KCI Restaurant Management LLC v. Holm Wright Hyde & Hays PLC 341 P.3d 1156 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
KCI Restaurant Management LLC v. Holm Wright Hyde & Hays PLC 341 P.3d 1156 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
at 95, 259 P.2d at 261 (the party whose prior pleading is admitted as 2 We can, however, affirm the judgment if the court was “correct in its ruling for any reason.” n.7, ¶ 17, n.7 (App. 2006) ( ); n.3, ¶ 36, n.3 (App. 2007) (in examining the trial court’s ruling, we noted that we may affirm the trial court if it is correct for any reason supported by the record).
Rogers v. Board of Regents of the University of Arizona 311 P.3d 1075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Rogers v. Board of Regents of the University of Arizona 311 P.3d 1075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
This court recently held that “[t]he statute of limitations does not run against a plaintiff in possession who brings a quiet title action purely to remove a cloud on the title to his property.” (“[A] cloud on the title and a cause of action to quiet title for the removal of the cloud on title is a continuous one and never barred by limitations while the cloud exists.”); (“If the action is a true quiet title action, meaning an
Cook v. Town of Pinetop-Lakeside 303 P.3d 67 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Cook v. Town of Pinetop-Lakeside 303 P.3d 67 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
(citing City of Tucson v. Melnykovich, 10 Ariz.App.
State v. MABERY RANCH, CO., LLC 165 P.3d 211 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. MABERY RANCH, CO., LLC 165 P.3d 211 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Rather than rely on the express terms of the statute, , which held that "a cause of action to quiet title for the removal of the cloud on title is a continuous one and never barred by limitations while the cloud exists."
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. El Paso Corp. 142 P.3d 708 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. El Paso Corp. 142 P.3d 708 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
“[I]f the trial court based its ruling upon the wrong reasons but was correct in its ruling for any reason, the appellate court is bound to affirm.”
State v. Dawson 858 P.2d 1213 Ariz. 1993
State v. Dawson 858 P.2d 1213 Ariz. 1993
the court of appeals considered the effect of § 18-152 (now § 28-1862(A)).
Gotland v. Town of Cave Creek 837 P.2d 1132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Gotland v. Town of Cave Creek 837 P.2d 1132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Matter of Estate of Moore 669 P.2d 609 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Matter of Estate of Moore 669 P.2d 609 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
People Ex Rel. Babbitt v. Green Acres Trust 618 P.2d 1086 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
People Ex Rel. Babbitt v. Green Acres Trust 618 P.2d 1086 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
While we agree with appellees that a judgment, and even a summary judgment, will be sustained if it is correct even though rendered for the wrong reason, , we find no basis for sustaining that part of the trial court’s ruling as to which we have indicated reversal.
Geronimo Hotel, Inc. v. City of Tucson 591 P.2d 72 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Geronimo Hotel, Inc. v. City of Tucson 591 P.2d 72 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Subsequently, however, , this court held that such an interpretation of McCune and Cap-pony clearly violated Article 2, Section 17 of the Arizona Constitution, which provides in part: * * * No private property shall be taken or damaged for public or private use without just compensation having first been made, or paid i
Stewart v. Woodruff 505 P.2d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Stewart v. Woodruff 505 P.2d 1081 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Riffle v. Robert L. Parker Company 505 P.2d 268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Riffle v. Robert L. Parker Company 505 P.2d 268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
*104 (1970); Arnold v. Knettle, 10 Ariz.App.
National Car Rental v. Fox 500 P.2d 1148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
National Car Rental v. Fox 500 P.2d 1148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State Personnel Commission v. Webb 500 P.2d 329 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State Personnel Commission v. Webb 500 P.2d 329 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Atkins v. State ex rel. Eyman 488 P.2d 1001 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Atkins v. State ex rel. Eyman 488 P.2d 1001 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971