Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Hart v. Bayless Investment & Trading Company, 346 P.2d 1101.

108 citing documents.

Pima v. Tucson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Pima v. Tucson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
& Trading Co., see also Scenic Ariz. v. City of Phoenix Bd.
State v. Stapley 251 P.3d 1048 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Stapley 251 P.3d 1048 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State of Arizona v. Payne Nelson Daniels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Payne 225 P.3d 1131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Payne 225 P.3d 1131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
& Trading Co., , (“The Board of Supervisors can exercise only those powers specifically ceded to it by the legislature.”).
State of Arizona v. Payne Nelson Daniels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
& Trading Co., (“The Board of Supervisors can exercise only those powers specifically ceded to it by the legislature.”).
COUNTY OF COCHISE v. SEBASTIAO FARIA and MARIA FARI Dba FARIA DAIRY Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
COUNTY OF COCHISE v. SEBASTIAO FARIA and MARIA FARI Dba FARIA DAIRY Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Emmett McLoughlin Realty, Inc. v. Pima County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Emmett McLoughlin Realty, Inc. v. Pima County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
& Trading Co., -09 (1959).
Zajac v. City of Casa Grande 102 P.3d 297 Ariz. 2004
Zajac v. City of Casa Grande 102 P.3d 297 Ariz. 2004
5 ¶10 Zajac appealed and, in a memorandum decision, the court of appeals reversed, rejecting the “substantial compliance” standard and holding that Hart v. Bayless Investment & Trading Co., P.2d 1101 (1959) and its progeny demand “strict compliance” with the notice requirements for public hearings on proposed zoning changes.
Blanchard v. Show Low Planning & Zoning Commission 993 P.2d 1078 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Hancock v. McCarroll 937 P.2d 682 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Hancock v. McCarroll 937 P.2d 682 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
The Board of Supervisors can exercise only those powers specifically ceded to it by the legislature.” Hart v. Bayless Investment & Trading Co.
Jachimek v. Superior Court 819 P.2d 487 Ariz. 1991
Jachimek v. Superior Court 819 P.2d 487 Ariz. 1991
Murphy v. Town of Chino Valley 789 P.2d 1072 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Murphy v. Town of Chino Valley 789 P.2d 1072 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Fiesta Mall Venture v. Mecham Recall Committee 767 P.2d 719 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Fiesta Mall Venture v. Mecham Recall Committee 767 P.2d 719 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
that our constitution “is not, as is the Constitution of the United States, to be considered a grant of power or enabling act to the Legislature, but rather is a limitation upon the power of that body....” Accord, Hart v. Bayless Investment & Trading Co.
Main I Ltd. Partnership v. Venture Capital Construction & Development Corp. 741 P.2d 1234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Main I Ltd. Partnership v. Venture Capital Construction & Development Corp. 741 P.2d 1234 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Carefree Improvement Ass'n v. City of Scottsdale 649 P.2d 985 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Carefree Improvement Ass'n v. City of Scottsdale 649 P.2d 985 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
When “jurisdictional notice” is mandated in a certain manner, any means of notice other than that prescribed is ineffective, Hart v. Bay-less Investment & Trading Co., , and failure to comply with the mandated notice will render any action void.
Croaff v. Evans 636 P.2d 131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Croaff v. Evans 636 P.2d 131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
The Graham court first quoted extensively from the Arizona Supreme Court’s prior opinion in Hart v. Bayless Investment & Trading Co., , as follows: “As has been noted above, we are here concerned with an exercise of a legislative power delegated to the Commission and the Board.
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
Hart v. Bayless Investment & Trading Co., , City of Phoenix v. Collins, 22 Ariz.App.
Ledesma v. PIONEER NAT. TITLE INS. CO. 629 P.2d 1007 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Ledesma v. PIONEER NAT. TITLE INS. CO. 629 P.2d 1007 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JD-561 638 P.2d 717 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JD-561 638 P.2d 717 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
780, 786 , 28 L.Ed.2d 113 (1971); Stanley v. Illinois, supra; , Hart v. Bayless Investment & Trading Co.
Specht v. City of Page 627 P.2d 1091 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Specht v. City of Page 627 P.2d 1091 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
McIntyre v. Mohave County 620 P.2d 696 Ariz. 1980
McIntyre v. Mohave County 620 P.2d 696 Ariz. 1980
(emphasis supplied) Strict compliance “with statutory requirements concerning the zoning aspect of the police power” is required, Hart v. Bayless Investment & Trading Company, , and “failure to follow the state statutory notice requirements renders a zoning ordinance void.” Pima County v. Clapp, 23 Ariz.App.
Levitz v. State 613 P.2d 1259 Ariz. 1980
Levitz v. State 613 P.2d 1259 Ariz. 1980
City of Scottsdale v. Superior Court, supra.
McIntyre v. Mohave County 618 P.2d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
McIntyre v. Mohave County 618 P.2d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Hart v. Bayless Investment & Trading Co., , : A.R.S.
Sandblom v. Corbin 608 P.2d 317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Sandblom v. Corbin 608 P.2d 317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Hart v. Bayless Investment & Trading Company, , Summit Properties
Davis v. Hidden 606 P.2d 36 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Davis v. Hidden 606 P.2d 36 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Hart v. Bayless Investment & Trading Co.
Dawe v. City of Scottsdale 581 P.2d 1136 Ariz. 1978
Dawe v. City of Scottsdale 581 P.2d 1136 Ariz. 1978
On November 25, 1959, , .
City of Scottsdale v. Scottsdale Associated Merchants, Inc. 583 P.2d 891 Ariz. 1978