Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Pima County v. De Concini, 285 P.2d 609.

28 citing documents.

State v. foothills/hanke Ariz. 2025
State v. foothills/hanke Ariz. 2025
“Severance damages compensate an owner whose property has been taken for any reduction in the fair market value of remaining property not taken.” Catalina Foothills, 238 Ariz. at 516 ¶ 21 (–58 (1955)); see Herman, 113 Ariz. at 128.
Catalina Foothills Unified School District No. 16 v. La Paloma Property Owners Ass'n 363 P.3d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Catalina Foothills Unified School District No. 16 v. La Paloma Property Owners Ass'n 363 P.3d 127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
§ 12-1122(A)(l)-(2) (2015); -58
City of Phoenix v. Wilson 4 P.3d 999 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
City of Phoenix v. Wilson 4 P.3d 999 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State Ex Rel. Ordway v. Buchanan 741 P.2d 292 Ariz. 1987
State Ex Rel. Ordway v. Buchanan 741 P.2d 292 Ariz. 1987
Pima County v. Palos Companies Unlimited 682 P.2d 1148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Pima County v. Palos Companies Unlimited 682 P.2d 1148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
City of Scottsdale v. Church of Holy Cross Lutheran 646 P.2d 301 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
City of Scottsdale v. Church of Holy Cross Lutheran 646 P.2d 301 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
City of Tucson v. Farness 508 P.2d 345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
City of Tucson v. Farness 508 P.2d 345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
the court stated: “The rule also is that in arriving" at the market value of land which has been damaged by the exercise of the right of eminent domain the court has a right to admit evidence of possible expenditures which, if expended, would, diminish the damages.
Haney v. City of Tucson 475 P.2d 955 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Haney v. City of Tucson 475 P.2d 955 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Kreisman v. Thomas 469 P.2d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Kreisman v. Thomas 469 P.2d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
169 , , City of Tucson v. O’Rielly Motor Co., , and 17 C. J.S.
State Ex Rel. Herman v. Southern Pacific Co. 445 P.2d 186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
State Ex Rel. Herman v. Southern Pacific Co. 445 P.2d 186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
The cases of Thelberg, supra, , and the recent case of Phoenix Title & Trust Co. v. State ex rel.
City of Phoenix v. Consolidated Water Company 415 P.2d 866 Ariz. 1966
City of Phoenix v. Consolidated Water Company 415 P.2d 866 Ariz. 1966
State Ex Rel. Morrison v. Jay Six Cattle Co. 353 P.2d 185 Ariz. 1960
State Ex Rel. Morrison v. Jay Six Cattle Co. 353 P.2d 185 Ariz. 1960
ich created an issue as to the most valuable use to which the land might be applied, then there would be a proper question for the determination of the court or jury.” (83 Ariz. at pages 238, 239, 319 P.2d at pages 996, 997) For a situation where a condemnation affected land which had several uses, all of which were taken into account in computing severance damages, , .
County of Maricopa v. Shell Oil Company 327 P.2d 1005 Ariz. 1958
County of Maricopa v. Shell Oil Company 327 P.2d 1005 Ariz. 1958
we laid down the rule that when only a part of the property is taken, the measure of severance damages is the difference between the market value of the property not taken, before and after the taking.
County of Maricopa v. Paysnoe 319 P.2d 995 Ariz. 1957
County of Maricopa v. Paysnoe 319 P.2d 995 Ariz. 1957