Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Blake v. City of Phoenix, 754 P.2d 1368.

32 citing documents.

McSo v. McLeo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
McSo v. McLeo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Son Silver v. Sedona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Son Silver v. Sedona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
& Van Buren, ¶ 19 (App. 2006), and will not overturn if there is any evidence to support the board’s decision
Abc v. Flood Control Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Abc v. Flood Control Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(“We will not substitute our judgment for that of the agency if it was persuaded by the probative force of the evidence before it.
Denver v. Azcc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Denver v. Azcc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
debatable and one in which we would have reached a different conclusion had we been the original arbiter of the issues raised by the application.”
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
STANT v. CITY OF MARICOPA EMPLOYEE MERIT BOARD 319 P.3d 1002 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
STANT v. CITY OF MARICOPA EMPLOYEE MERIT BOARD 319 P.3d 1002 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Accordingly, “[w]e will not substitute our judgment for that of the board, even where the question is faulty or debatable and one in which we would have reached a different conclusion had we been the original arbiter of the issues raised.”
Robbins v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 300 P.3d 556 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Robbins v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 300 P.3d 556 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
(citing Keller v. City of Bellingham, 92 Wash.2d 726 , ).
Bridgestone Retail Tire Operations v. Industrial Commission 258 P.3d 271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Bridgestone Retail Tire Operations v. Industrial Commission 258 P.3d 271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Sec., , (holding that judicial deference should be given to agencies charged with the responsibility of carrying out specific legislation); , (same).
Richard E. Lambert, Ltd. v. City of Tucson Dept. of Procurement Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Richard E. Lambert, Ltd. v. City of Tucson Dept. of Procurement Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
see also Smith v. Ariz. Dep’t of Transp.
Buckelew v. Town of Parker 937 P.2d 368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Buckelew v. Town of Parker 937 P.2d 368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Although a mere increase in volume or intensity of use does not constitute a change in use, , a change in the basic nature or character of that use may result in a loss of the property’s protected status as a nonconforming use.
Rotter v. Coconino County 818 P.2d 704 Ariz. 1991
Rotter v. Coconino County 818 P.2d 704 Ariz. 1991
of Adjustment, , (zoning ordinance amended to permit expansion of nonconforming uses did not confer an automatic right to expansion, rather expansion was subject to meeting requirements for use permit); , (decision of zoning board to deny use permit to expand nonconforming use was upheld because the change in nature of use from wholesale to retail business constituted an impermissible change in use).
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
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
Ethridge v. Arizona State Board of Nursing 796 P.2d 899 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Ethridge v. Arizona State Board of Nursing 796 P.2d 899 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
this court stated: The court may not intervene if there is “any” evidence to support the administrative decision, and should not weigh the evidence in making that determination.
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
U.S. Parking Systems v. City of Phoenix 772 P.2d 33 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
U.S. Parking Systems v. City of Phoenix 772 P.2d 33 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Judicial deference should be given to agencies charged with the responsibility of carrying out specific legislation, , and ordinarily an agency’s interpretation of a statute or regulation it implements is given great weight.