Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Kubby v. Hammond, 198 P.2d 134.

54 citing documents.

Novak v. Fountain Hills Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Novak v. Fountain Hills Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
§ 9-462.02(A) is the “utilization of [a] premises so that [it] may be known in the neighborhood as being employed for a given purpose.” Watanabe, 140 Ariz. at 578 (); cf. A.R.S.
Levine v. phoenix/suns Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Levine v. phoenix/suns Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Scenic Arizona v. City of Phoenix Board of Adjustment 268 P.3d 370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Scenic Arizona v. City of Phoenix Board of Adjustment 268 P.3d 370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
at 212 , 772 P.2d at 35 ; , (deferring to the agency definition when the word “industrial” had been construed the same way by the agency for seventeen years).
Nolan v. Starlight Pines Homeowners Ass'n 167 P.3d 1277 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Nolan v. Starlight Pines Homeowners Ass'n 167 P.3d 1277 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
c. Further, “nuisance ordinarily implies a continuity or recurrence of action over a substantial period of time.” , see also Restatement § 821F emt.
Kahn v. Thompson 916 P.2d 1124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
Kahn v. Thompson 916 P.2d 1124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
Rotter v. Coconino County 818 P.2d 704 Ariz. 1991
Rotter v. Coconino County 818 P.2d 704 Ariz. 1991
Kubby v. Hammond, [ , ].
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
Kubby v. Hammond, [ , ].
U.S. Parking Systems v. City of Phoenix 772 P.2d 33 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Distinguished U.S. Parking Systems v. City of Phoenix 772 P.2d 33 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
cited by appellees is distinguishable.
Watanabe v. City of Phoenix 683 P.2d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Watanabe v. City of Phoenix 683 P.2d 1177 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
the Arizona Supreme Court defined “existing use” as the “utilization of the premises so that they may be known in the neighborhood as being employed for a given purpose.” 68 Ariz. at 24 , 198 P.2d at 139 .
Specht v. City of Page 627 P.2d 1091 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Specht v. City of Page 627 P.2d 1091 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Furthermore, the axiomatic rule that zoning ordinances, being in derogation of common law property rights, are to be strictly construed in favor of property owners, , applies in cases concerning compliance with the statutory notice requirements necessary for enactment of the zoning ordinance.
Pima County v. Cardi 600 P.2d 37 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Pima County v. Cardi 600 P.2d 37 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
E. g., , 1 R. Anderson, American Law of Zoning, § 6.19 (2nd ed. 1976).
City of Scottsdale v. Scottsdale Associated Merchants, Inc. 583 P.2d 891 Ariz. 1978
City of Scottsdale v. Scottsdale Associated Merchants, Inc. 583 P.2d 891 Ariz. 1978
Hart v. Bayless Investment and Trading Company, supra.
Anderson v. Pima County 558 P.2d 981 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Anderson v. Pima County 558 P.2d 981 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
In that case, our Supreme Court stated its preference to demand strict compliance with statutory requirements concerning the zoning aspect of police power
McQuade v. Tucson Tiller Apartments, Ltd. 543 P.2d 150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
McQuade v. Tucson Tiller Apartments, Ltd. 543 P.2d 150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Hooks v. International Speedways, Inc., 263 N.C.
Pima County v. Clapp 530 P.2d 1119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Pima County v. Clapp 530 P.2d 1119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
: “Zoning ordinances, being in derogation of common law property rights, will be strictly construed and any ambiguity *90 or uncertainty decided in favor of property owners.” 68 Ariz. at 22 , 198 P. at 138.
Grossman v. Hatley 522 P.2d 46 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
Grossman v. Hatley 522 P.2d 46 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
County of Maricopa v. Anzwool, Inc. 506 P.2d 282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
County of Maricopa v. Anzwool, Inc. 506 P.2d 282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
1016 (1926); , , is decisive of the question.
East Camelback Homeowners Ass'n v. Arizona Foundation for Neurology & Psychiatry 500 P.2d 906 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
East Camelback Homeowners Ass'n v. Arizona Foundation for Neurology & Psychiatry 500 P.2d 906 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
E. To determine the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a jurisdictional fact found to exist by an inferior board or tribunal where review is by certiorari, it is necessary to determine whether the order sought to be reviewed is “without any evidence to support it, or is absolutely contrary to the uncontradicted and unconflicting evidence upon which it purports to rest.” , Anno.
Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co. 494 P.2d 700 Ariz. 1972
Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co. 494 P.2d 700 Ariz. 1972
Peabody v. City of Phoenix 485 P.2d 565 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Peabody v. City of Phoenix 485 P.2d 565 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Town of Cottonwood v. Evans 480 P.2d 16 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Town of Cottonwood v. Evans 480 P.2d 16 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Phoenix City Council v. Canyon Ford, Inc., 12 Ariz.App.
Phoenix City Council v. Canyon Ford, Inc. 473 P.2d 797 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Phoenix City Council v. Canyon Ford, Inc. 473 P.2d 797 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Robinson v. Lintz 420 P.2d 923 Ariz. 1966
Robinson v. Lintz 420 P.2d 923 Ariz. 1966
An additional reason for not sanctioning implied powers in a , , where we said: “Zoning Ordinances, being in derogation of common law property rights, will be strictly construed and any ambiguity or uncertainty decided in favor of property owners.” This reasoning is likewise applicable to the statutes which grant the legislative power for adopting such zoning ordin
Hart v. Bayless Investment & Trading Company 346 P.2d 1101 Ariz. 1959
Hart v. Bayless Investment & Trading Company 346 P.2d 1101 Ariz. 1959
we said: “Zoning ordinances, being in derogation of common law property rights, will be strictly construed and any ambiguity or uncertainty decided in favor of property owners.” That case dealt with the construction of an ordinance, father than with the question of its validity.
Carrillo v. Taylor 299 P.2d 188 Ariz. 1956
Carrillo v. Taylor 299 P.2d 188 Ariz. 1956

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by