Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Maricopa County Municipal Water Conservation Dist. No. 1 v. Warford, 206 P.2d 1168.

47 citing documents.

A Tumbling-T Ranches v. Flood Control District 217 P.3d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
A Tumbling-T Ranches v. Flood Control District 217 P.3d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
No. 1 v. Watford, , (“Any substantial interference, therefore with the rights over a physical object which destroys or lessens its value, or by which the use and enjoyment thereof by its owner is in any substantial degree abridged or destroyed, is both in law and in fact a ‘taking’ of property.”) (citatio
Flood Control Dist. v. Gaines 43 P.3d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Flood Control Dist. v. Gaines 43 P.3d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
No. 1 ("Water District") v. Warford, , that the ten-year period of Arizona Code Annotated ("A.C.A.") § 29-103 (1939) (now A.R.S.
State v. Dawson 858 P.2d 1213 Ariz. 1993
State v. Dawson 858 P.2d 1213 Ariz. 1993
v. Warford, , (inverse eminent domain action for damage caused by diverted water).
Taft v. Ball, Ball & Brosamer, Inc. 818 P.2d 158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Taft v. Ball, Ball & Brosamer, Inc. 818 P.2d 158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Maricopa County Municipal Water Conservation District No. 1 v. Warford, , Maricopa County Municipal Water Conservation District No. 1 v. Roosevelt Irrigation District
Preferred Risk Mutual Insurance v. Vargas 754 P.2d 346 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Preferred Risk Mutual Insurance v. Vargas 754 P.2d 346 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Bahman v. Estes Homes 710 P.2d 1087 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Bahman v. Estes Homes 710 P.2d 1087 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
That a landowner has no right to collect surface runoff water from its subdivision in an artificial channel and cause it to erode or flow to a neighboring homeowner’s lands is established by Maricopa County Municipal Water Conservation District No. 1 v. Warford
TUSCON MEDICAL CENTER v. Apache County 682 P.2d 1143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
TUSCON MEDICAL CENTER v. Apache County 682 P.2d 1143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Maricopa County Municipal Water Conservation Disk No. 1 v. Warford
Day v. Schenectady Discount Corp. 611 P.2d 568 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Day v. Schenectady Discount Corp. 611 P.2d 568 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Norcor of America v. Southern Arizona International Livestock Ass'n 596 P.2d 377 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Norcor of America v. Southern Arizona International Livestock Ass'n 596 P.2d 377 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Rondelli v. County of Pima 586 P.2d 1295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Rondelli v. County of Pima 586 P.2d 1295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Markiewicz v. SALT RIVER VALLEY, ETC. 576 P.2d 517 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Markiewicz v. SALT RIVER VALLEY, ETC. 576 P.2d 517 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Maricopa County Municipal Water Conservation District No. 1 v. Warford
Campbell Estates, Inc. v. Bates 517 P.2d 515 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Campbell Estates, Inc. v. Bates 517 P.2d 515 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
No. 1 v. Warford, , , Roosevelt Irrig.
Green Reservoir Flood Control District v. Willmoth 489 P.2d 69 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Green Reservoir Flood Control District v. Willmoth 489 P.2d 69 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
No. 1 v. Warford, , meaning that the waters came in flood proportions.
Kirkpatrick v. Butler 483 P.2d 790 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Kirkpatrick v. Butler 483 P.2d 790 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
City of Tucson v. Melnykovich 457 P.2d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
City of Tucson v. Melnykovich 457 P.2d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Nothing in Forsstrom, which was concerned with a physical change of grade, or Maricopa County Municipal Water C. D. No. 1 v. Warford, , or Rutledge v. State, supra, n. 1 , cited by appellant, is to the contrary.
Weintraub v. Flood Control District 450 P.2d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Weintraub v. Flood Control District 450 P.2d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Busby v. State Ex Rel. Herman 420 P.2d 173 Ariz. 1966
Busby v. State Ex Rel. Herman 420 P.2d 173 Ariz. 1966
No. 1 v. Warford, , Long v. City of Tulsa, 199 Okl.
Diedrich v. Farnsworth 413 P.2d 774 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Diedrich v. Farnsworth 413 P.2d 774 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Other decisions of our Supreme Court have assumed that waters flowing in arroyos or washes are stream waters or, at least, that the law pertaining to stream waters was applicable: , 196 P. 1024 (1921); City of Tucson v. O’Rielly Motor Co., , Maricopa County Municipal Water C. D. No. 1 v. Warford, , , 262 P.2d *272 252 (1953); , and Gillespie Land &amp
Rutledge v. State 412 P.2d 467 Ariz. 1966
Rutledge v. State 412 P.2d 467 Ariz. 1966
In Maricopa County Municipal Water Conservation District No. 1 v. Warford, , , cited by the plaintiffs, we held a claims statute based on liability created by statute was not applicable for the reason that an artificially-created diversion channel built by the District, which caused flooding of the plaintiffs’ land constituted “the taking of an easement” and for this reason no
State v. Helm 345 P.2d 202 Ariz. 1959
State v. Leeson 323 P.2d 692 Ariz. 1958
State v. Leeson 323 P.2d 692 Ariz. 1958
County of Maricopa v. Paysnoe 319 P.2d 995 Ariz. 1957
County of Maricopa v. Paysnoe 319 P.2d 995 Ariz. 1957
Maricopa County Municipal W. C. D. No. 1 v. Warford, , ; , .
Local 266, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District 275 P.2d 393 Ariz. 1954
Local 266, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District 275 P.2d 393 Ariz. 1954
No. 1 v. Warford et ux., 1949, , ; Taylor v. Roosevelt Irr.
City of Tucson v. Apache Motors 245 P.2d 255 Ariz. 1952
City of Tucson v. Apache Motors 245 P.2d 255 Ariz. 1952
No. 1 v. Warford, , , is based upon the doctrine of inverse eminent domain.