Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Aegis of Arizona, L.L.C. v. Town of Marana, 81 P.3d 1016.

34 citing documents.

State v. Alvarado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
see also Aegis of Ariz., ¶ 54, (“To establish an equal protection violation, a party must .
Bank of Ny v. St. John Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Aegis of Ariz., –63 ¶ 18, –22 (App. 2003).
Craven v. Huppenthal 338 P.3d 324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Craven v. Huppenthal 338 P.3d 324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
See Aegis of Ariz., ¶ 54, (party asserting equal protection violation must first demonstrate treatment different from others in similarly situated class).
Fisher v. Edgerton 336 P.3d 167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Fisher v. Edgerton 336 P.3d 167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“To establish an equal protection violation, a party must____ show that it was treated differently than other people in the same ‘similarly situated’ class.” Aegis of Ariz., ¶54 , , (“The equal protection clauses of the state and federal constitutions have the same effect and generally require that all persons subject to state legislation shall be treated alike under similar circumstances.” (citation o
Anderson v. Prescott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
See Aegis of Ariz., -71, ¶ 54, -30 (App. 2003); see also United States v. Horton, 601 F.2d 319, 323-324 (7th Cir.), cert.
Vong v. Aune 328 P.3d 1057 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Vong v. Aune 328 P.3d 1057 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Aegis of Ariz., -71, ¶ 54, -30 (App. 2003) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Alpha, LLC v. Dartt 304 P.3d 1126 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Alpha, LLC v. Dartt 304 P.3d 1126 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
See Aegis of Ariz., ¶ 44 , (threshold requirement for procedural and substantive due process claims is “the plaintiffs showing of a liberty or property interest protected by the Constitution”).
Coleman v. City of Mesa 265 P.3d 422 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
McBride v. KIECKHEFER ASSOCIATES, INC. 265 P.3d 1061 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
McBride v. KIECKHEFER ASSOCIATES, INC. 265 P.3d 1061 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
See Aegis of Ariz., ¶ 34 , Trustmark Ins.
Coleman v. City of Mesa 265 P.3d 422 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
ng the meeting, however, the Council “has not heard any evidence that the tattoo business is detrimental to a neighborhood other than the perception.” Although we agree with Mesa it can appropriately consider citizens’ viewpoints in deciding whether a commercial business is appropriately located in a particular neighborhood, see Aegis of Ariz., ¶ 49 , we do not agree Mesa can constitutionally deny a Permit for a tattoo parlor, thereby restricting the exercise of free expression, based solely on
Canyon Del Rio Investors, L.L.C. v. City of Flagstaff 258 P.3d 154 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
If a decision does not ‘conclusively determine’ an issue but, rather, ‘leaves open the possibility’ that the decision is subject to change, then it is not final or ripe for review and cannot support a § 1983 claim.” , 567-68, , 1026-27 (App.2003) (citing Williamson, 473 U.S. at 193-94 , 105 S.Ct.
College Book Centers, Inc. v. Carefree Foothills Homeowners' Ass'n 241 P.3d 897 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
College Book Centers, Inc. v. Carefree Foothills Homeowners' Ass'n 241 P.3d 897 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Braillard v. Maricopa County, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
A Tumbling-T Ranches v. Flood Control District 217 P.3d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
A Tumbling-T Ranches v. Flood Control District 217 P.3d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
HUGHES CUSTOM BLDG, LLC v. Davey 212 P.3d 865 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
HUGHES CUSTOM BLDG, LLC v. Davey 212 P.3d 865 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Aegis of Ariz., , ¶ 16, , 1021 (App. 2003).
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
Aegis of Ariz., -63, ¶ 18 , -22 (App.2003) (quotations and citations omitted).
UNITED DAIRYMEN OF ARIZONA v. Rawlings 177 P.3d 334 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
UNITED DAIRYMEN OF ARIZONA v. Rawlings 177 P.3d 334 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
"In reviewing a judgment based on a jury verdict, we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to sustaining the judgment.” Aegis of Ariz, ¶ 2 , (citation omitted).
Karbal v. Arizona Department of Revenue 158 P.3d 243 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Aegis of Ariz., , 562-63, ¶ 18, , 1021-22 (App. 2003) (quotations omitted).
City of Bisbee v. Arizona Water Company Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
¶14 AWC also argues “[t]he City failed to seek administrative recourse before the Commission and thus the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.” “Generally, a party must exhaust administrative remedies before appealing to the courts.” Aegis of Ariz.
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
Curtis v. Richardson 131 P.3d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Curtis v. Richardson 131 P.3d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Aegis of Ariz., -71, ¶54 , -30 (App.2003); Lindsay v. Cave Creek Outfitters, L.L.C., ¶25
Acuna v. Hampton And Kroack Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
See, e.g., Aegis of Ariz., Golonka v. Gen.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by