Cited by

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

108 citing documents.

City of Scottsdale v. Scottsdale Associated Merchants, Inc. 583 P.2d 891 Ariz. 1978
City of Scottsdale v. Superior Court, supra.
BOARD OF SUP'RS OF MARICOPA CTY. v. Woodall 586 P.2d 640 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
BOARD OF SUP'RS OF MARICOPA CTY. v. Woodall 586 P.2d 640 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Hart v. Bayless Investment & Trading Co., , , 68 P. 525 (1902)
Dawe v. City of Scottsdale 581 P.2d 1143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Dawe v. City of Scottsdale 581 P.2d 1143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
The Arizona Supreme Court declared this zoning ordinance invalid in Hart v. Bayless Investment & Trading Co., , which became final on January 12, 1960.
Smith v. Smith 571 P.2d 1045 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Smith v. Smith 571 P.2d 1045 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
In the case of Hart v. Bayless Investment & Trading Co., , this court, in discussing jurisdictional notice, stated: This Court has held that, where a jurisdictional notice is required to be given in a certain manner, any means other than that prescribed is ineffective.
Anderson v. Pima County 558 P.2d 981 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Anderson v. Pima County 558 P.2d 981 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
As stated in the Arizona landmark case of Hart v. Bay-less Investment & Trading Company, , not cited by either party: “The authority of the Board of Supervisors, constituting the legislative body of the county, to adopt zoning ordinances is undisputed.
Summit Properties, Inc. v. Wilson 550 P.2d 104 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Summit Properties, Inc. v. Wilson 550 P.2d 104 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
.” In Hart v. Bayless Investment & Trading Company, , the Arizona Supreme Court struck down the entire Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance scheme some nine years after its enactment, upon the basis of defective compliance with the notice of hearing provisions in the enabling statutes.
Davis v. Industrial Commission 548 P.2d 849 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Davis v. Industrial Commission 548 P.2d 849 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Both Hart v. Bayless Investment & Trading Company, , and Henningson, Durham & Richardson v. Prochnow, 13 Ariz.App.
Transamerica Title Insurance Co. v. Cochise County 548 P.2d 416 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Transamerica Title Insurance Co. v. Cochise County 548 P.2d 416 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Hart v. Bayless Investment & Trading Co.
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
Hart v. Bayless Investment & Trading Co., , City of Phoenix v. Collins, 22 Ariz.App.
Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. ARIZ. INS. GUAR. ASS'N 528 P.2d 839 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. ARIZ. INS. GUAR. ASS'N 528 P.2d 839 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
As said in Hart v. Bayless Investment & Trading Co., P.2d 1101 (1959) : “It is not necessary, in order to provide due process, that interested parties be present at stages of the legislative deliberations.” 86 Ariz. at 389 , 346 P.2d at 1108-1109 .
Pima County v. Clapp 530 P.2d 1119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Pima County v. Clapp 530 P.2d 1119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
The court below, relying on Hart v. Bayless Investment & Trading Co., , ruled that appellants had exceeded their jurisdiction and ordered that appellees’ Villa Mesa Plat be processed and approved forthwith.
City of Phoenix v. Beall 524 P.2d 1314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
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.
Maricopa County v. Black 506 P.2d 279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Maricopa County v. Black 506 P.2d 279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Hart v. Bayless Investment & Trading Co., , Hartford, supra.
State v. Church 504 P.2d 940 Ariz. 1973
State v. Church 504 P.2d 940 Ariz. 1973
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
The Phoenix City Council, in adopting Rl-10 zoning for the subject property, acted in a legislative capacity, Hart v. Bayless Investment & Trading Co., , cloaking the ordinance with a presumption of validity.
San Fernando Motors, Inc. v. Fowler 498 P.2d 169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
San Fernando Motors, Inc. v. Fowler 498 P.2d 169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
& Trading Co., , Ware v. Phillips, supra.
Maricopa County Board of Supervisors v. Bell 51st Investors 495 P.2d 1315 Ariz. 1972
Maricopa County Board of Supervisors v. Bell 51st Investors 495 P.2d 1315 Ariz. 1972
& Trading Co., , , said: “Zoning ordinances, being in derogation of common law property rights, will be strictly construed.
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
Committee for Neighborhood Preservation v. Graham 484 P.2d 226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Committee for Neighborhood Preservation v. Graham 484 P.2d 226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
310 , and this fact is established as to counties by Hart v. Bayless Investment & Trading Company
SCHOOL DIST. NO. 26 (BOUSE ELEM.) OF YUMA CO. v. Strohm 469 P.2d 826 Ariz. 1970
SCHOOL DIST. NO. 26 (BOUSE ELEM.) OF YUMA CO. v. Strohm 469 P.2d 826 Ariz. 1970
Hart v. Bayless Investment & Trading Company, , ; , .
Kilpatrick v. Superior Court 466 P.2d 18 Ariz. 1970
Kilpatrick v. Superior Court 466 P.2d 18 Ariz. 1970
185 P. 136 ; State ex rel.
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
The Board of Supervisors, in adopting the Agua Caliente-Sabino Creek zoning plan, acted in a legislative capacity, Hart v. Bayless Investment & Trading Company, , cloaking the ordinance with a presumption of validity.
Arizona Fence Contractors Ass'n v. City of Phoenix Advisory & Appeals Board 436 P.2d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Arizona Fence Contractors Ass'n v. City of Phoenix Advisory & Appeals Board 436 P.2d 641 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
§ 12-1832; , Connolly v. Great Basin Ins.
Iman v. Southern Pacific Company 435 P.2d 851 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Iman v. Southern Pacific Company 435 P.2d 851 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
& Trading Co., , Town of Scottsdale v. State ex rel.
Mueller v. City of Phoenix Ex Rel. Phoenix Board of Adjustment II 435 P.2d 472 Ariz. 1967
Robinson v. Lintz 420 P.2d 923 Ariz. 1966
Robinson v. Lintz 420 P.2d 923 Ariz. 1966
Hart v. Bayless Investment & Trading Co., , ; Hartford Accident & , .