Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite City of Phoenix v. Fehlner, 363 P.2d 607.

50 citing documents.

Bonito Partners, LLC v. City of Flagstaff 270 P.3d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Bonito Partners, LLC v. City of Flagstaff 270 P.3d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
the court will not substitute its opinion for that of the legislative body.” , (internal quotation omitted).
Wonders v. Pima County 89 P.3d 810 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Wonders v. Pima County 89 P.3d 810 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
See Ranch 57 v. City of Yuma, , ( , consistent with federal constitutional requirements).
State v. Watson 6 P.3d 752 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Watson 6 P.3d 752 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
(observing with regard to zoning laws enacted to alleviate urban blight that “[t]he concept that a man owns his property from the center of the earth to the limits of the sky to use as suits his own fancy is not now and has not ever been entirely true.”).
Fritz v. City of Kingman 957 P.2d 337 Ariz. 1998
Fritz v. City of Kingman 957 P.2d 337 Ariz. 1998
See also Queen Creek Land & , (refusing to bar referendum on supervisors’ grant of a zoning change); , (zoning is a function of the legislative branch); , (establishing appropriate zoning classes is primarily legislative).
Home Builders Ass'n v. City of Scottsdale 930 P.2d 993 Ariz. 1997
Home Builders Ass'n v. City of Scottsdale 930 P.2d 993 Ariz. 1997
Ripps v. City of Tucson 736 P.2d 827 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Ripps v. City of Tucson 736 P.2d 827 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
RANCH 57 v. City of Yuma 731 P.2d 113 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
RANCH 57 v. City of Yuma 731 P.2d 113 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Corrigan v. City of Scottsdale 720 P.2d 528 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Corrigan v. City of Scottsdale 720 P.2d 528 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Cardon Oil Co. v. City of Phoenix
Bartolomeo v. Town of Paradise Valley 631 P.2d 564 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Bartolomeo v. Town of Paradise Valley 631 P.2d 564 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Wait v. City of Scottsdale 618 P.2d 601 Ariz. 1980
Wait v. City of Scottsdale 618 P.2d 601 Ariz. 1980
Cardon Oil Co. v. City of Phoenix 593 P.2d 656 Ariz. 1979
Cardon Oil Co. v. City of Phoenix 593 P.2d 656 Ariz. 1979
State v. Owens 562 P.2d 738 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Owens 562 P.2d 738 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Town of Paradise Valley v. Gulf Leisure Corp. 557 P.2d 532 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Town of Paradise Valley v. Gulf Leisure Corp. 557 P.2d 532 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
v. City of Phoenix, , , , 8A McQuillin, The Law of Municipal Corporations, § 25.302 (3d ed. 1965).
Citizens for Orderly Development & Environment v. City of Phoenix 540 P.2d 1239 Ariz. 1975
Citizens for Orderly Development & Environment v. City of Phoenix 540 P.2d 1239 Ariz. 1975
City of Phoenix v. Oglesby 537 P.2d 934 Ariz. 1975
City of Phoenix v. Oglesby 537 P.2d 934 Ariz. 1975
City of Tempe v. Rasor 536 P.2d 239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
City of Tempe v. Rasor 536 P.2d 239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Also, , the mere fact that property would be substantially more valuable if another use were permitted is not in itself sufficient reason to invalidate an existing zoning ordinance.
City of Phoenix v. Beall 524 P.2d 1314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
City of Phoenix v. Collins 524 P.2d 1318 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
City of Phoenix v. Collins 524 P.2d 1318 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
These general legal concepts have been followed in a series of Arizona cases: , , City of Phoenix v. Beall, 22 Ariz.App.
City of Phoenix v. Beall 524 P.2d 1314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Hart v. Bayless Investment & Trading Company, , , Rubi v. 49er Country Club Estates, Inc., 2 7 Ariz.App.
City of Phoenix v. Price 500 P.2d 1132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
City of Phoenix v. Price 500 P.2d 1132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Peabody v. City of Phoenix 485 P.2d 565 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Peabody v. City of Phoenix 485 P.2d 565 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Hawes v. Cooper 480 P.2d 1005 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Hawes v. Cooper 480 P.2d 1005 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Klensin v. City of Tucson 459 P.2d 316 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Klensin v. City of Tucson 459 P.2d 316 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
159 , , Arverne Bay Construction Company v. Thatcher, 278 N.Y.
Courson v. City of Tucson 457 P.2d 346 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Courson v. City of Tucson 457 P.2d 346 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
However, “to sustain an attack upon the validity of the ordinance an aggrieved property owner must show that if the ordinance is enforced the consequent restrictions upon his property preclude its use for any purpose to which it is reasonably adapted.” , quoting from Arverne Bay Construction Company v. Thatcher, 278 N.Y.
City of Phoenix v. Burke 452 P.2d 722 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
City of Phoenix v. Burke 452 P.2d 722 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Rubi v. 49'er Country Club Estates, Inc. 440 P.2d 44 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Rubi v. 49'er Country Club Estates, Inc. 440 P.2d 44 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968