Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State Ex Rel. Morrison v. Jay Six Cattle Co., 353 P.2d 185.

52 citing documents.

State v. foothills/hanke Ariz. 2025
State v. foothills/hanke Ariz. 2025
(“All of the [separate parcels of] land owned by [the condemnees were] contiguous and thus can properly be considered as a ‘larger parcel,’ only part of which is sought to be condemned, within the meaning of A.R.S.
State v. foothills/hanke Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. foothills/hanke Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
(discussing unitary value of property where tracts of land were condemned); State ex rel.
State v. Todd 418 P.3d 1147 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Todd 418 P.3d 1147 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Morrison v. Jay Six Cattle Co. , , 106, (precluding impeachment evidence with "slight probative force" harmless).
SALT RIVER PROJ. AGRIC. IMP. AND POWER DIST. v. Miller Park, LLC 183 P.3d 497 Ariz. 2008
SALT RIVER PROJ. AGRIC. IMP. AND POWER DIST. v. Miller Park, LLC 183 P.3d 497 Ariz. 2008
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Miller Park, L.L.C. 164 P.3d 667 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Miller Park, L.L.C. 164 P.3d 667 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
( , )(alterations in original).
State Ex Rel. Mendez v. AMERICAN SUPPORT 100 P.3d 932 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State Ex Rel. Mendez v. AMERICAN SUPPORT 100 P.3d 932 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
requires a different conclusion.
City of Phoenix v. Wilson 21 P.3d 388 Ariz. 2001
City of Phoenix v. Wilson 21 P.3d 388 Ariz. 2001
Morrison v. Jay Six Cattle Co., Inc.
Town of Paradise Valley v. Young Financial Services, Inc. 868 P.2d 971 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Town of Paradise Valley v. Young Financial Services, Inc. 868 P.2d 971 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
In such a case, the effect of the probability on the minds of purchasers generally may be taken into consideration in fixing the present market value, McMinn, 88 Ariz. at 264 , 355 P.2d at 903 ; -10 , -94 (1960); Hing, 147 Ariz. at 299 , 709 P.2d at 1358 , but there must be evidence of “reasonable probability” as distinguished from “possibility” and “speculation” in order for the exception to apply.
State Ex Rel. Ordway v. Buchanan 741 P.2d 292 Ariz. 1987
State Ex Rel. Ordway v. Buchanan 741 P.2d 292 Ariz. 1987
State ex rel. Ordway v. Buchanan 741 P.2d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State ex rel. Ordway v. Buchanan 741 P.2d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
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
The concept that the present use to which a , , : A valuation which does not take into consideration the highest use would not be the fair market value and therefore would not be just compensation.
City of Scottsdale v. Eller Outdoor Advertising Co. of Arizona, Inc. 579 P.2d 590 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
City of Scottsdale v. Eller Outdoor Advertising Co. of Arizona, Inc. 579 P.2d 590 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Arizona State Land Department v. State Ex Rel. Herman 547 P.2d 479 Ariz. 1976
Arizona State Land Department v. State Ex Rel. Herman 547 P.2d 479 Ariz. 1976
Blanton & Company v. Transamerica Title Ins. Co. 536 P.2d 1077 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Blanton & Company v. Transamerica Title Ins. Co. 536 P.2d 1077 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Robles v. City of Tucson 491 P.2d 489 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Robles v. City of Tucson 491 P.2d 489 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Parrish v. Camphuysen 488 P.2d 657 Ariz. 1971
Parrish v. Camphuysen 488 P.2d 657 Ariz. 1971
City of Tucson v. LaForge 446 P.2d 692 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
City of Tucson v. LaForge 446 P.2d 692 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Defnet Land & Investment Co. v. State Ex Rel. Herman 442 P.2d 835 Ariz. 1968
Defnet Land & Investment Co. v. State Ex Rel. Herman 442 P.2d 835 Ariz. 1968
: "‘It follows that prior sales made on an ■■acreage basis which reflected the use of '■the property for cattle grazing purposes "would not necessarily be determinative of the basis upon which the property, which fronted on a highway and had direct access thereto, would be valued for its best use as com
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
Morrison v. Jay Six Cattle Company, Inc.
Chadwick v. Winn 421 P.2d 890 Ariz. 1966
Chadwick v. Winn 421 P.2d 890 Ariz. 1966
in which we held that evidence of the front foot sale price of other similar land was relevant and admissible on the issue of market value.
State Ex Rel. Herman v. Wilson 420 P.2d 992 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
State Ex Rel. Herman v. Wilson 420 P.2d 992 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Suffield v. State Ex Rel. Morrison 375 P.2d 263 Ariz. 1962
Suffield v. State Ex Rel. Morrison 375 P.2d 263 Ariz. 1962
Fletcher v. State Ex Rel. Morrison 367 P.2d 272 Ariz. 1961
Fletcher v. State Ex Rel. Morrison 367 P.2d 272 Ariz. 1961
Higgins v. Arizona Savings and Loan Association 365 P.2d 476 Ariz. 1961
Higgins v. Arizona Savings and Loan Association 365 P.2d 476 Ariz. 1961
Morrison v. Jay Six Cattle Company, 1960, -101 , -188 ; Board of Regents of University, etc. v. Cannon, 1959, , , Annotation, 159 A.L.R.
Parker v. State Ex Rel. Church 359 P.2d 63 Ariz. 1961
Parker v. State Ex Rel. Church 359 P.2d 63 Ariz. 1961
Morrison v. Jay Six Cattle Co., Inc., , .