Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Pima County v. Bilby, 351 P.2d 647.

71 citing documents.

Michael Soto v. Anthony M Sacco 398 P.3d 90 Ariz. 2017
City of Phoenix v. John E. Garretson 322 P.3d 149 Ariz. 2014
City of Phoenix v. John E. Garretson 322 P.3d 149 Ariz. 2014
See Thelberg, 87 Ariz. at 325, 350 P.2d at 992 (explaining the amount of 12 CITY OF PHOENIX V. GARRETSON Opinion of the Court compensation as the “difference in the value of the remaining property before and after the access thereto has been destroyed or impaired”); (recognizing that the property owner must prove to the trier of fact the loss of value).
City of Phoenix v. Garretson 302 P.3d 640 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
City of Phoenix v. Garretson 302 P.3d 640 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
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
Calmat of Arizona v. State Ex Rel. Miller 859 P.2d 1323 Ariz. 1993
Calmat of Arizona v. State Ex Rel. Miller 859 P.2d 1323 Ariz. 1993
Liberatore v. Thompson 760 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Liberatore v. Thompson 760 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
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
Pima County v. DeConcini, supra; American Savings Life Insurance Company v. State, 13 Ariz.App.
Matcha v. Winn 638 P.2d 1361 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Matcha v. Winn 638 P.2d 1361 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
State ex rel. Ordway v. McRae 594 P.2d 1021 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
State ex rel. Ordway v. McRae 594 P.2d 1021 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Reeves v. Markle 579 P.2d 1382 Ariz. 1978
Reeves v. Markle 579 P.2d 1382 Ariz. 1978
City of Yuma v. Lattie 572 P.2d 108 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
City of Yuma v. Lattie 572 P.2d 108 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
In support of this contention
Adroit Supply Co. v. Electric Mutual Liability Insurance 542 P.2d 810 Ariz. 1975
Adroit Supply Co. v. Electric Mutual Liability Insurance 542 P.2d 810 Ariz. 1975
Creamer v. Troiano 494 P.2d 738 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Creamer v. Troiano 494 P.2d 738 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
341 , ; , ” 11 Ariz.App.
American Savings Life Insurance v. State ex rel. Herman 476 P.2d 680 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
American Savings Life Insurance v. State ex rel. Herman 476 P.2d 680 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
*339 , : “Plaintiff’s assertion that he is entitled at least to nominal damages — even if the value of his land was not diminished— because his easement of ingress and egress was partially ‘taken’, is not supported, as claimed, by A.R.S.
Cano v. Neill 473 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Cano v. Neill 473 P.2d 487 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
See also, to like effect, , -64 , -650 (1956); and General Petroleum Corp. v. Barker, supra.
State Ex Rel. Herman v. Schaffer 467 P.2d 66 Ariz. 1970
State Ex Rel. Herman v. Schaffer 467 P.2d 66 Ariz. 1970
Zadro v. Snyder 464 P.2d 809 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Zadro v. Snyder 464 P.2d 809 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
State Ex Rel. Herman v. Hague 459 P.2d 321 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
State Ex Rel. Herman v. Hague 459 P.2d 321 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
State v. Thomas 454 P.2d 153 Ariz. 1969
State v. Thomas 454 P.2d 153 Ariz. 1969
Blakely Oil, , ; Bradley [Produce] v. Philhower, , ; , 282 * , .” 88 Ariz. a
Moschetti v. City of Tucson 449 P.2d 945 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Moschetti v. City of Tucson 449 P.2d 945 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
explaining the change in our law.
Heaton v. Waters 445 P.2d 458 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Heaton v. Waters 445 P.2d 458 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
An appellate court will not disturb an order granting a new trial “ * * * unless the probative force of the evidence clearly demonstrates that the trial court’s action is wrong and unjust and therefore unreasonable and a manifest abuse of discretion.”
Phoenix Title & Trust Co. v. Arizona Public Service Co. 445 P.2d 169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Phoenix Title & Trust Co. v. Arizona Public Service Co. 445 P.2d 169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
wherein the Supreme Court of Arizona stated that in an action to condemn a new right-of-way, damages are confined to the proposed use and the jury is not permitted to speculate on the damages that may result from presently uncontemplated future changes in use.
State v. Wilson 438 P.2d 760 Ariz. 1968
State v. Wilson 438 P.2d 760 Ariz. 1968
Phoenix Title & Trust Co. v. State Ex Rel. Herman 425 P.2d 434 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Phoenix Title & Trust Co. v. State Ex Rel. Herman 425 P.2d 434 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Rogers v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. 412 P.2d 272 Ariz. 1966
Rogers v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. 412 P.2d 272 Ariz. 1966
Yoo Thun Lim v. Crespin 411 P.2d 809 Ariz. 1966

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by