Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite City of Tucson v. Rineer, 971 P.2d 207.

31 citing documents.

Shao v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Shao v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶7 “A city may ‘exercise all powers granted by its charter, provided that the exercise is not inconsistent with either the constitution or general laws of the state.’” Babe’s ¶ 7 (App. 1999) (as amended) (–62 ¶ 2 (App. 1998)).
State Ex Rel Brnovich v. City of tucson/dewit 399 P.3d 663 Ariz. 2017
Falcone Brothers & Associates, Inc. v. City of Tucson 381 P.3d 276 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Falcone Brothers & Associates, Inc. v. City of Tucson 381 P.3d 276 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
The City is a municipal corporation, -09 (App. 1998), and lacks legal authority for its administrative scheme here.
City of Scottsdale v. State 352 P.3d 936 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
City of Scottsdale v. State 352 P.3d 936 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Coles 324 P.3d 859 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Coles 324 P.3d 859 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Wonders v. Pima County 89 P.3d 810 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Wonders v. Pima County 89 P.3d 810 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Griffin 58 P.3d 516 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Griffin 58 P.3d 516 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
¶¶ 13, 16 , ¶¶ 13, 16 (App.1999); , (Arizona “constitutional right to bear arms is not absolute”); Noel, 3 Ariz.App.
State of Arizona v. Amiel Proto 58 P.3d 33 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State of Arizona v. Amiel Proto 58 P.3d 33 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
McMann v. City of Tucson 47 P.3d 672 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
McMann v. City of Tucson 47 P.3d 672 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Dillon v. Zeneca Corp. 42 P.3d 598 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Dillon v. Zeneca Corp. 42 P.3d 598 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
National Bank of Commerce v. Dow Chemical Co., 165 F.3d 602 (8th Cir.1999); , (whether city ordinance preempted by state law reviewed de novo).
City of Tucson v. Grezaffi 23 P.3d 675 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
City of Tucson v. Grezaffi 23 P.3d 675 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
City of Tucson v. Pima County 19 P.3d 650 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
City of Tucson v. Pima County 19 P.3d 650 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
City of Tucson v. Consumers for Retail Choice 5 P.2d 934 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
City of Tucson v. Consumers for Retail Choice 5 P.2d 934 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
State v. Preston 4 P.3d 1004 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
State v. Preston 4 P.3d 1004 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
‘The party challenging the validity of a statute has the burden of overcoming that strong presumption.’ ”
Babe's Cabaret v. City of Scottsdale 3 P.3d 1018 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Babe's Cabaret v. City of Scottsdale 3 P.3d 1018 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
(App.1998); see Chaparral Dev.
State v. Taylor 2 P.3d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Taylor 2 P.3d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999