Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Board of Regents of the Universities & State College v. City of Tempe, 356 P.2d 399.

35 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Az Board of Regents Ariz. 2022
State of Arizona v. Az Board of Regents Ariz. 2022
v. City of Tempe, (“We think it perfectly clear .
Boruch v. State ex rel. Halikowski 399 P.3d 686 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Boruch v. State ex rel. Halikowski 399 P.3d 686 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
299, the Arizona Board of Regents sought to enjoin the City of Tempe from demanding that the Board comply with Tempe’s building codes and regulations in constructing and remodeling buildings on the Tempe campus of Arizona State University.
Pima County v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Pima County v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Britt v. Red Mesa Unified School District No. 27 748 P.2d 1195 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Britt v. Red Mesa Unified School District No. 27 748 P.2d 1195 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Book-Cellar, Inc. v. City of Phoenix 721 P.2d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Book-Cellar, Inc. v. City of Phoenix 721 P.2d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Arizona Board of Regents v. Zappia 577 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Arizona Board of Regents v. Zappia 577 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
The Board of Regents is a state agency, , and is subject to A.R.S.
Town of Wickenburg v. State 565 P.2d 1326 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Town of Wickenburg v. State 565 P.2d 1326 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Finally, , which was a successful action brought by the state to enjoin the city from interfering, through its admitted power to enforce building codes, with the university’s construction program.
Ernst v. Arizona Board of Regents 579 P.2d 1105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Ernst v. Arizona Board of Regents 579 P.2d 1105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Tempe v. Board of Regents, 11 Ariz.App.
State ex rel. State Community College Board v. Sergent, Hauskins & Beckwith, Inc. 556 P.2d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State ex rel. State Community College Board v. Sergent, Hauskins & Beckwith, Inc. 556 P.2d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
a body corporate, , 215 P. 510 (1923); 2) not to be the State of Arizona but a separate legal entity, , 3) the “state” as such term is used in the Minimum Wage Law, , and 4) an agency of the state
Arizona State Tax Commission v. Reiser 495 P.2d 1342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Arizona State Tax Commission v. Reiser 495 P.2d 1342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Since the Board of Regents, the argument continues, is a public agency of this state (Board of Regents of Universities, , ), it is not a taxpayer, and hence its employees are not entitled to the annuity exclusion.
State Ex Rel. Berger v. Myers 495 P.2d 844 Ariz. 1972
State Ex Rel. Berger v. Myers 495 P.2d 844 Ariz. 1972
Williams v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN & FOR CTY. OF PIMA, ETC. 494 P.2d 26 Ariz. 1972
Williams v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN & FOR CTY. OF PIMA, ETC. 494 P.2d 26 Ariz. 1972
City of Tucson v. Landry 493 P.2d 117 Ariz. 1972
City of Tucson v. Landry 493 P.2d 117 Ariz. 1972
City of Tucson v. Landry 486 P.2d 193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
City of Tucson v. Landry 486 P.2d 193 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
City of Tempe v. Arizona Board of Regents 461 P.2d 503 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
City of Tempe v. Arizona Board of Regents 461 P.2d 503 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Our Supreme Court has stated: “We hold that the City of Tempe may not apply its building codes and regulations to Arizona State University.” Board of Regents of Universities
Ashton Company v. City of Tucson 441 P.2d 275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Ashton Company v. City of Tucson 441 P.2d 275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
The case most directly in point with the situation before us is Board of Regents of Universities and State College of Arizona v. City of Tempe, etc.
City of Scottsdale v. Municipal Court of Tempe 368 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1962
City of Scottsdale v. Municipal Court of Tempe 368 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1962
This Court repeatedly stressed in Board of Regents of Universities, , , that a state agency delegated by law with the responsibility of performing a governmental function was not subj ect to the police powers of the city exerted through its building code.
Watson Construction Co. v. City of St. Paul 109 N.W.2d 332 Minn. 1961

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by