Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Allied American Inv. Co. v. Pettit, 179 P.2d 437.

45 citing documents.

Tms v. Zachariah Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Tms v. Zachariah Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
); see also Allied, 65 Ariz. at 287 (“Words are unnecessary if the intent can be gathered from other sources.”).
Palmer v. City of Phoenix 393 P.3d 938 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Palmer v. City of Phoenix 393 P.3d 938 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
-90, 179 P. 437, 440-41 (1947) (when, pursuant to statute, landowner records plat showing streets, alleys, parks, and other property reserved for the public’s use, fee vests in town, if incorporated).
Kadlec v. Dorsey 233 P.3d 1130 Ariz. 2010
Kadlec v. Dorsey 233 P.3d 1130 Ariz. 2010
and Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes § 2.18(1) (2000)).
City of Chandler v. Arizona Department of Transportation 231 P.3d 932 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
City of Chandler v. Arizona Department of Transportation 231 P.3d 932 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Kadlec v. Dorsey 223 P.3d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Lowe v. Pima County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Lowe v. Pima County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
(“The use by the purchasers of lots and the general public constituted a sufficient acceptance.”); Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes § 2.18 cmt.
Pleak v. ENTRADA PROPERTY OWNERS'ASS'N 87 P.3d 831 Ariz. 2004
Pleak v. ENTRADA PROPERTY OWNERS'ASS'N 87 P.3d 831 Ariz. 2004
Pleak v. Entrada Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Pleak v. Entrada Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Bauza Holdings, L.L.C. v. Primeco, Inc. 18 P.3d 132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Bauza Holdings, L.L.C. v. Primeco, Inc. 18 P.3d 132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
(tax lien forecloser did not acquire title to streets or parcel previously dedicated to Maricopa County as a public park); , (tax lien had priority over earlier mortgage assigned to private individual by state)
Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 12 P.3d 1208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 12 P.3d 1208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Rodgers , however, , in which the issue was whether a subdivision plot was properly dedicated as a public park.
Sprang v. Petersen Lumber, Inc. 798 P.2d 395 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Sprang v. Petersen Lumber, Inc. 798 P.2d 395 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Brandt v. City of Yuma 601 P.2d 1065 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Brandt v. City of Yuma 601 P.2d 1065 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Rodgers v. Ray 457 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Rodgers v. Ray 457 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
23 Am.Jur.2d Dedication § 28, pp. 26-27, when attacked only by a motion for summary judgment.
City of Scottsdale v. Mocho 444 P.2d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
City of Scottsdale v. Mocho 444 P.2d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
ding of both Sections 9-254 and 9-477, A.R.S., “and other parcels of ground reserved therein to the use of the public.” The City further contends that if the dedication falls short of a statutory dedication by plat, that a common law dedication has occurred, as the defendant has, after recording the plat, sold lots by reference thereto, citing us to Allied American In *149 , wherein our Supreme Court stated: “Dedication is the intentional appropriation of land by the owner to some proper public
City of Flagstaff v. Babbitt 443 P.2d 938 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
City of Flagstaff v. Babbitt 443 P.2d 938 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
See Allied American Investment Company v. Pettit, 65 *
Phoenix Jewish Community Council v. Leon 427 P.2d 138 Ariz. 1967
Phoenix Jewish Community Council v. Leon 427 P.2d 138 Ariz. 1967
we said: “ * * * We are in accord with the holding in these cases to the effect that a valid sale for taxes clothes the grantee with a new and complete title under an independent grant from the sovereign [citations omitted] free of any prescriptive title (Santos case), and all other liens and encumbra
Moeur v. City of Tempe 412 P.2d 878 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Moeur v. City of Tempe 412 P.2d 878 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Laz v. Southwestern Land Company 397 P.2d 52 Ariz. 1964
Laz v. Southwestern Land Company 397 P.2d 52 Ariz. 1964
County of Yuma v. Leidendeker 303 P.2d 531 Ariz. 1956
County of Yuma v. Leidendeker 303 P.2d 531 Ariz. 1956
Drane v. Avery 231 P.2d 444 Ariz. 1951
Drane v. Avery 231 P.2d 444 Ariz. 1951
and cases cited therein.
City of Phoenix v. Landrum & Mills Realty Co. 227 P.2d 1011 Ariz. 1951
City of Phoenix v. Landrum & Mills Realty Co. 227 P.2d 1011 Ariz. 1951
Appellants contend under the rule laid down in Allied American Investment Co. v. Pettit, 1947, , , that this property has therefore been dedicated as a plaza or a park.
Shumway v. Fleishman 187 P.2d 636 Ariz. 1947
Shumway v. Fleishman 187 P.2d 636 Ariz. 1947
Edwards v. Sheets 185 P.2d 1001 Ariz. 1947
Edwards v. Sheets 185 P.2d 1001 Ariz. 1947