Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Pinkerton v. Pritchard, 223 P.2d 933.

43 citing documents.

Spore v. Campeau Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Spore v. Campeau Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(defendant’s easement to use land for road purposes did not allow it to construct a fence or other structures on it).
Four Seas v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Four Seas v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Scalia v. Green 271 P.3d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Scalia v. Green 271 P.3d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
¶25 “The right to possess, to use and to enjoy land upon which an easement is claimed remains in the owner of the fee except in so far as the exercise of such right is inconsistent with the purpose and character of the easement.” Etz, 72 Ariz. at 231 , 233 P.2d at 444 ( , ).
Hunt v. Richardson 163 P.3d 1064 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Hunt v. Richardson 163 P.3d 1064 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
(citations omitted) (emphasis added); , (“The right to possess, to use and to enjoy land upon which an easement is claimed remains in the owner of the fee except in so far as the exercise of such right is inconsistent w
Mullenaux v. Graham County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Mullenaux v. Graham County 82 P.3d 362 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Mullenaux v. Graham County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
P.2d 933 (1950) (res judicata applies both to claims actually raised and claims capable of having been raised); P.2d 1236 (App. 1995) (res judicata applies to certain administrative agency decisions).
Mullenaux v. Graham County 82 P.3d 362 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
(res judicata applies both to claims actually raised and claims capable of having been raised); , (res judicata applies to certain administrative agency decisions).
Paxson v. Glovitz 50 P.3d 420 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Paxson v. Glovitz 50 P.3d 420 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Cutter Aviation, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 958 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Cutter Aviation, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 958 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
(quoting City of Phoenix v. State ex rel.
Kadera v. Superior Court 931 P.2d 1067 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Kadera v. Superior Court 931 P.2d 1067 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
has no technical meaning.” Finally, in Arizona statutes, we must interpret the word “ownership” to have “the widest variety of construction, usually guarded in some measure by the object sought to be accomplished.”
City of Scottsdale v. Thomas 753 P.2d 1207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
City of Scottsdale v. Thomas 753 P.2d 1207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
The general rule with regard to the use of easements is that “the owner of the easement cannot materially increase the burden of the servient estate or impose thereon a new and additional burden.” 25 Am.Jur.2d Easements and Licenses § 72 at 478 (1966)
Kelman v. Bohi 550 P.2d 671 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Kelman v. Bohi 550 P.2d 671 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
We are not persuaded that the illustrative case cited in Madden, , is authority for a contrary interpretation.
Bayless Investment & Trading Co. v. Bekins Moving & Storage Co. 547 P.2d 1065 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Bayless Investment & Trading Co. v. Bekins Moving & Storage Co. 547 P.2d 1065 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Chalpin v. Mobile Gardens, Inc. 501 P.2d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Chalpin v. Mobile Gardens, Inc. 501 P.2d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Madden v. Barnes 446 P.2d 510 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Madden v. Barnes 446 P.2d 510 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Rousselle v. Jewett 421 P.2d 529 Ariz. 1966
Rousselle v. Jewett 421 P.2d 529 Ariz. 1966
Marble v. Parham 416 P.2d 1006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Marble v. Parham 416 P.2d 1006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Blecick v. School District No. 18 of Cochise County 406 P.2d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Blecick v. School District No. 18 of Cochise County 406 P.2d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Davis v. State, 1 Ariz.App.
Stevens v. Mehagian's Home Furnishings, Inc. 365 P.2d 208 Ariz. 1961
Stevens v. Mehagian's Home Furnishings, Inc. 365 P.2d 208 Ariz. 1961
Rule 54(b) is designed to make an accommodation between the policy against piecemeal appeals, , , and the problems that have arisen under liberalized joinder of claims, counterclaims, cross-claims, and third-party claims in one suit permitted by our rules of procedure.
Kerr-McGee Oil Industries, Inc. v. McCray 361 P.2d 734 Ariz. 1961
Kerr-McGee Oil Industries, Inc. v. McCray 361 P.2d 734 Ariz. 1961
and they should be construed in a reasonable manner to effectuate this purpose.
Lietz v. Primock 327 P.2d 288 Ariz. 1958
Lietz v. Primock 327 P.2d 288 Ariz. 1958
Swoboda v. County of Renville 62 N.W.2d 816 Minn. 1954
Etz v. Mamerow 233 P.2d 442 Ariz. 1951
Etz v. Mamerow 233 P.2d 442 Ariz. 1951
Langazo v. San Joaquin Light & Power Corp., 32 Cal.App.2d 678 , .