Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Brown v. City of Phoenix, 272 P.2d 358.

35 citing documents.

Neptune Swimming Foundation v. City of Scottsdale Ariz. 2024
Neptune Swimming Foundation v. City of Scottsdale Ariz. 2024
is the seminal case here.
Neptune v. Scottsdale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Neptune v. Scottsdale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Guardians v. Wells 34 P.3d 364 Ariz. 2001
Guardians v. Wells 34 P.3d 364 Ariz. 2001
Forest Guardians v. Wells 4 P.3d 1054 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Tire Shredders, Inc. v. Pima County 965 P.2d 86 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Tire Shredders, Inc. v. Pima County 965 P.2d 86 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Thus, *358 we conclude that the language in the minutes stating that the board had awarded the contract to K & B does not indicate that the board acted in excess of its statutory authority- ¶ 18 Tire Shredders contends that K & B was not the lowest responsible bidder so that the board lacked statutory authority to award it the contract, , , and City of Phoenix v. Wittman Contracting Co., 20 Ariz.App.
Grand Canyon Pipelines, Inc. v. City of Tempe 816 P.2d 247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Grand Canyon Pipelines, Inc. v. City of Tempe 816 P.2d 247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
1, 5 , -73 , (reviewing decision by city council where city charter provision required grant of public leases to highest responsible bidder).
Maucher v. City of Eloy 701 P.2d 593 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Maucher v. City of Eloy 701 P.2d 593 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
the letting of contracts for public business should be above suspicion or favoritism.” at 377 , 272 * at 367 (1954).
Miceli v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 659 P.2d 30 Ariz. 1983
Miceli v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 659 P.2d 30 Ariz. 1983
“This rule, however, is qualified by the provision that if it clearly appears that an officer has acted arbitrarily and unjustly and in the abuse of discretion, the action may still be brought.” Id.
Ruck Const. Co., Inc. v. City of Tucson 570 P.2d 220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Ruck Const. Co., Inc. v. City of Tucson 570 P.2d 220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
at 373, at 361 (1954), the Arizona Supreme Court held: “The cases agree that the power to grant the contract to the .
Heiner v. City of Mesa 515 P.2d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Heiner v. City of Mesa 515 P.2d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Illustrative cases are: , , , and Sulphur Springs v. City of *64 Tombstone
City of Phoenix v. Wittman Contracting Co. 509 P.2d 1038 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
City of Phoenix v. Wittman Contracting Co. 509 P.2d 1038 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
31, 1973, formal opinion to follow); , Schrey v. Allison Steel Mfg.
Brand v. Elledge 419 P.2d 531 Ariz. 1966
Brand v. Elledge 419 P.2d 531 Ariz. 1966
In Re Estate of Trigg 414 P.2d 988 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
In Re Estate of Trigg 414 P.2d 988 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Senner v. Bank of Douglas 354 P.2d 48 Ariz. 1960
Senner v. Bank of Douglas 354 P.2d 48 Ariz. 1960
the trial court dismissed petitioner’s application for a writ of mandamus to compel the city council of Phoenix to grant it a car rental lease at the municipal airport.
State Board of Technical Registration v. Bauer 326 P.2d 358 Ariz. 1958
State Board of Technical Registration v. Bauer 326 P.2d 358 Ariz. 1958
Hertz Drive-Ur-Self System, Inc. v. Tucson Airport Authority 299 P.2d 1071 Ariz. 1956
Hertz Drive-Ur-Self System, Inc. v. Tucson Airport Authority 299 P.2d 1071 Ariz. 1956
This action in mandamus to require the Authority to award the contract to plaintiff was begun within a , , became final about October 1, 1954.
Arizona State Highway Commission v. Superior Court 299 P.2d 783 Ariz. 1956
Arizona State Highway Commission v. Superior Court 299 P.2d 783 Ariz. 1956
Chesley v. Jones 299 P.2d 179 Ariz. 1956
Chesley v. Jones 299 P.2d 179 Ariz. 1956