Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Solana Land Co. v. Murphey, 210 P.2d 593.

48 citing documents.

State v. foothills/hanke Ariz. 2025
State v. foothills/hanke Ariz. 2025
Restatement (Third) § 4.5(1) (explaining what qualifies as an “appurtenant easement”).
Wells v. Zummallen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Wells v. Zummallen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Arizona courts interpret this to mean that “only a party owning or having a beneficial use in land that is ‘land-locked’ may bring an action to condemn a private way of necessity across the land of another.”
McEuen v. Christensen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
McEuen v. Christensen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Arizona courts have interpreted this statutory language as indicating “that only a party owning or having a beneficial use in land that is ‘land-locked’ may bring an action to condemn a private way of necessity across the land of another.” see also Coll.
Dabrowski v. Bartlett 442 P.3d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Dabrowski v. Bartlett 442 P.3d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
cessity does not exist if the severance of the parcel did not cause the lot to lack a reasonable outlet; (3) unity of ownership for a merger may occur even if the parties are technically different; (4) in a private condemnation action, a finding that a more reasonable route exists through the subject property constitutes “bad faith, oppression, or abuse of power” precluding the condemnor from condemning its selected route; and (5) a private condemnation judgment must be satisfied before a final
College Book Centers, Inc. v. Carefree Foothills Homeowners' Ass'n 241 P.3d 897 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
College Book Centers, Inc. v. Carefree Foothills Homeowners' Ass'n 241 P.3d 897 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Siemsen, 196 Ariz. at 414, ¶ 9, 998 P.2d at 1087 .
State v. Stummer 171 P.3d 1229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Stummer 171 P.3d 1229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
( , see also Kotterman, 193 Ariz. at 291, ¶ 68 , 972 P.2d at 624 (“[W]hile Washington’s judicial decisions may prove useful, they certainly do not control Arizona law.”).
Bailey v. Myers 76 P.3d 898 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Bailey v. Myers 76 P.3d 898 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Empress Adult Video & Bookstore v. City of Tucson 59 P.3d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Empress Adult Video & Bookstore v. City of Tucson 59 P.3d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
(deference accorded recent Washington cases interpreting identical provision of its state constitution); , (opinions of Washington Supreme Court peculiarly persuasive when our constitutional provision obviously copied from that state’s constitution).
Clouse Ex Rel. Clouse v. State 16 P.3d 757 Ariz. 2001
Clouse Ex Rel. Clouse v. State 16 P.3d 757 Ariz. 2001
("While the opinion from the Supreme Court of Washington is not controlling, it is peculiarly persuasive both by reason of its sound reasoning as well as the fact that our constitutional provision on eminent domain was obviously copied from the constitution of that state.”); see also St
Clouse v. State 11 P.3d 1012 Ariz. 2000
Clouse v. State 11 P.3d 1012 Ariz. 2000
("While the opinion from the Supreme Court of Washington is not controlling, it is peculiarly persuasive both by reason of its sound reasoning as well as the fact that our constitutional provision on eminent domain was obviously copied from the constitution of that state.”); see also St
Tobias v. Dailey 998 P.2d 1091 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Siemsen v. Davis 998 P.2d 1084 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Tobias v. Dailey 998 P.2d 1091 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Siemsen v. Davis 998 P.2d 1084 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
§ 12-1202 (1994), permits a landlocked private landowner to condemn a “private way of necessity” across lands of another upon showing a “reasonable necessity.”
Roosevelt Elementary School District Number 66 v. Bishop 877 P.2d 806 Ariz. 1994
Ammer v. Arizona Water Co. 818 P.2d 190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Ammer v. Arizona Water Co. 818 P.2d 190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Bickel v. Hansen 819 P.2d 957 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Bickel v. Hansen 819 P.2d 957 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Tucson Electric Power Co. v. Adams 656 P.2d 1257 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Tucson Electric Power Co. v. Adams 656 P.2d 1257 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
stated: “While the opinion from the Supreme Court of Washington is not controlling, it is peculiarly persuasive both by reason of its sound reasoning as well as the fact that our constitutional provision on eminent domain was obviously copied from the constitution of that state....
Gulotta v. Triano 608 P.2d 81 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Gulotta v. Triano 608 P.2d 81 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
holding that a landowner need only show reasonable necessity, such as an inadequate outlet, to condemn a right-of-way across intervening land to a public road.
Chandler Flyers, Inc. v. Stellar Development Corp. 592 P.2d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Chandler Flyers, Inc. v. Stellar Development Corp. 592 P.2d 387 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
construing Arizona’s statutory private way of necessity provisions, A.R.S.
City of Phoenix v. McCullough 536 P.2d 230 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
City of Phoenix v. McCullough 536 P.2d 230 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Citizens Utilities Water Co. v. Superior Court, supra
State Ex Rel. Herman v. Schaffer 515 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1973
State Ex Rel. Herman v. Schaffer 515 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1973
Lancaster v. Chemi-Cote Perlite Corporation 511 P.2d 673 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Lancaster v. Chemi-Cote Perlite Corporation 511 P.2d 673 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Greater Arizona Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Gleeson 429 P.2d 464 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Connolly v. Great Basin Insurance Company 423 P.2d 732 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Connolly v. Great Basin Insurance Company 423 P.2d 732 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
we find the following statement relative to the sufficiency of a judgment: “A judgment or decree should be definite and certain in itself, or capable of being made so by proper construction.
Decker v. City of Tucson 419 P.2d 400 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Decker v. City of Tucson 419 P.2d 400 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
State v. Birmingham 392 P.2d 775 Ariz. 1964
State v. Birmingham 392 P.2d 775 Ariz. 1964