Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite City of Scottsdale v. Thomas, 753 P.2d 1207.
- Hunt v. Richardson 163 P.3d 1064 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
-
Hunt v. Richardson
163 P.3d 1064
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
125 , (citations omitted) (emphasis added); , (“The right to possess, to use and to enjoy land upon which an easement is claimed remains in the owner of the fee except in so far as the exercise of such right is inconsistent with the purpose and character of the easement.”); , (“[T]he owner of the easement cannot materially increase the burden of the servient estate or impose thereon a new and additional burden.” (citation and internal quotation omitted) ).
- Stewart v. Travers 965 P.2d 67 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
-
Stewart v. Travers
965 P.2d 67
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
(the Court of Appeals is not bound by the trial *335 court’s conclusions of law).
- Scholten v. Blackhawk Partners 909 P.2d 393 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
- Scholten v. Blackhawk Partners 909 P.2d 393 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
- Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young 901 P.2d 1178 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
-
Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young
901 P.2d 1178
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
(appellate court is not bound by trial court’s conclusions of law).
- State v. Johnson 911 P.2d 527 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
- State v. Johnson 911 P.2d 527 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
- Horizon Resources Bethany Ltd. v. Cutco Industries, Inc. 881 P.2d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
- Horizon Resources Bethany Ltd. v. Cutco Industries, Inc. 881 P.2d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
- State v. Jones 865 P.2d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
- State v. Jones 865 P.2d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
- Arizona Biltmore Estates Ass'n v. Tezak 868 P.2d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
- Arizona Biltmore Estates Ass'n v. Tezak 868 P.2d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
- Klimkowski v. De La Torre 857 P.2d 392 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
-
Klimkowski v. De La Torre
857 P.2d 392
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
We review the trial court’s conclusions of law de novo, , and view the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff.
- Kadish v. Arizona State Land Department 868 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
- Kadish v. Arizona State Land Department 868 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
- Rodney v. Arizona Bank 836 P.2d 434 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
- Rodney v. Arizona Bank 836 P.2d 434 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
- Heartfield v. Transit Management of Tucson, Inc. 829 P.2d 1227 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
- Heartfield v. Transit Management of Tucson, Inc. 829 P.2d 1227 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
- State v. Stuart 811 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
- State v. Stuart 811 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
- Rotter v. Coconino County 805 P.2d 1019 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
- Rotter v. Coconino County 805 P.2d 1019 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
- Morgan Bank (Delaware) v. Wilson 794 P.2d 959 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
- Morgan Bank (Delaware) v. Wilson 794 P.2d 959 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
- Marsoner v. Pima County 801 P.2d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
- Marsoner v. Pima County 801 P.2d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
- Mields v. Villarreal 769 P.2d 464 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
- Mields v. Villarreal 769 P.2d 464 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989