Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite City of Tucson v. Garrett, 267 P.2d 717.

40 citing documents.

City of Tucson v. Pima County 19 P.3d 650 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
City of Tucson v. Pima County 19 P.3d 650 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Pickrell, 102 Ariz. at 363 , 430 P.2d at 125 ; , (legislature may delegate to municipality total discretion whether to grant or deny annexation); -21 , (legislature free to delegate this power to existing cities and towns “upon such terms as [it] may think proper”); see also H
City of Tucson v. Woods 959 P.2d 394 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
City of Tucson v. Woods 959 P.2d 394 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
City of Phoenix v. Superior Court 762 P.2d 128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
City of Phoenix v. Superior Court 762 P.2d 128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
§ 9-471(C) (any interested party may petition to set aside an annexation for failure to comply with the statutory procedures); , (injunction appropriate when petitions for annexation were insufficient as a matter of law); , (landowner may seek to enjoin annexation if city lacks jurisdiction over subject realty because not contiguous to city boundaries).
Roberts v. City of Mesa 760 P.2d 1091 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Roberts v. City of Mesa 760 P.2d 1091 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
The petitioners are “mere supplicants.”
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. City of St. Johns 718 P.2d 184 Ariz. 1986
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. City of St. Johns 718 P.2d 184 Ariz. 1986
“The extent of the right of municipalities to enlarge their boundaries *286 is dependent entirely on the legisla-ture____”
Goodyear Farms v. City of Avondale 714 P.2d 386 Ariz. 1986
Goodyear Farms v. City of Avondale 714 P.2d 386 Ariz. 1986
Goodyear Farms v. City of Avondale 714 P.2d 426 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Goodyear Farms v. City of Avondale 714 P.2d 426 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
California Portland Cement Co. v. Picture Rocks Fire District 692 P.2d 1019 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
California Portland Cement Co. v. Picture Rocks Fire District 692 P.2d 1019 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Kempton v. City of Safford 683 P.2d 338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Kempton v. City of Safford 683 P.2d 338 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Glick v. Town of Gilbert 599 P.2d 848 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Glick v. Town of Gilbert 599 P.2d 848 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Arizona courts, to date, have adopted a much more restrictive standard of judicial review, see e. g., P.2d 717 (1954), and Division Two of this Court has approved an annexation very similar to the one involved in this case, holding that the contiguity requirement is met by any “touching.” City of Safford v. Town of Thatcher, supra.
Town of Chino Valley v. State Land Department 580 P.2d 704 Ariz. 1978
Town of Chino Valley v. State Land Department 580 P.2d 704 Ariz. 1978
Gieszl v. Town of Gilbert 529 P.2d 255 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Gieszl v. Town of Gilbert 529 P.2d 255 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Jay v. Kreigh 514 P.2d 736 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Jay v. Kreigh 514 P.2d 736 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
City of Safford v. Town of Thatcher 495 P.2d 150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
City of Safford v. Town of Thatcher 495 P.2d 150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Town of Scottsdale v. State 405 P.2d 871 Ariz. 1965
Town of Scottsdale v. State 405 P.2d 871 Ariz. 1965
Helm v. Town of Benson, Cochise County
State v. Town of Benson, Cochise County 387 P.2d 807 Ariz. 1963
State v. Town of Benson, Cochise County 387 P.2d 807 Ariz. 1963
State ex rel. Helm v. Town of Benson 381 P.2d 760 Ariz. 1963
State ex rel. Helm v. Town of Benson 381 P.2d 760 Ariz. 1963
Swift v. City of Phoenix 367 P.2d 791 Ariz. 1961
Swift v. City of Phoenix 367 P.2d 791 Ariz. 1961
Municipal Corporations § 55, p. 157; , ; A.R.S.
Burton v. City of Tucson 356 P.2d 413 Ariz. 1960
Burton v. City of Tucson 356 P.2d 413 Ariz. 1960
Hunter v. Pittsburg, 207 U.S. 161 , 28 S.Ct.
City of Phoenix v. Struckmeyer 267 P.2d 724 Ariz. 1954
City of Phoenix v. Struckmeyer 267 P.2d 724 Ariz. 1954