Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Hollis, 379 P.2d 750.

34 citing documents.

Dos Picos Land Ltd. Partnership v. Pima County 240 P.3d 853 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Dos Picos Land Ltd. Partnership v. Pima County 240 P.3d 853 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
See id.; see also Salaz, 157 Ariz. at 253 , 756 P.2d at 350
PIMA COUNTY v. DOS PICOS LAND LIMITED PARTNERSHIP SHEPARD, Et Ux. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
PIMA COUNTY v. DOS PICOS LAND LIMITED PARTNERSHIP SHEPARD, Et Ux. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
at 193, 859 P.2d at 1326; see, (venue provision applied).
AIDA RENTA TRUST v. Maricopa County 212 P.3d 941 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
AIDA RENTA TRUST v. Maricopa County 212 P.3d 941 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
¶ 19 “[E]xpert opinion evidence based on sheer speculation is not competent.” , ¶29 , Souza v. Fred Carries Contracts, Inc.
Duwa, Inc. v. City of Tempe 52 P.3d 213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Duwa, Inc. v. City of Tempe 52 P.3d 213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
City of Phoenix v. Clauss 869 P.2d 1219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
City of Phoenix v. Clauss 869 P.2d 1219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
(“property cannot be charged with a lesser value at the time of taking when the decrease in such value is occasioned by the taking itself.”); , (“[T]he damage caused by the imminence of condemnation is m
Calmat of Arizona v. State Ex Rel. Miller 859 P.2d 1323 Ariz. 1993
Calmat of Arizona v. State Ex Rel. Miller 859 P.2d 1323 Ariz. 1993
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
Calmat of Arizona v. STATE EX REL., MILLER 836 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Calmat of Arizona v. STATE EX REL., MILLER 836 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
the court held that A.R.S.
State Ex Rel. Miller v. Filler 812 P.2d 620 Ariz. 1991
State Ex Rel. Miller v. Filler 812 P.2d 620 Ariz. 1991
Maricopa County v. Barkley 812 P.2d 1052 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Maricopa County v. Barkley 812 P.2d 1052 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
but that case does not attempt to reconcile these two statutes and merely reiterates the venue rule in A.R.S.
Salaz v. City of Tucson 756 P.2d 348 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Salaz v. City of Tucson 756 P.2d 348 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
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
See, , , 4 Nichols, The Law of Eminent Domain, § 13.35[2] (Rev. 3rd ed. 1976).
City of Yuma v. Lattie 572 P.2d 108 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
City of Yuma v. Lattie 572 P.2d 108 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
379 P.2d *284 750 (1963)
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
Uvodich v. Arizona Board of Regents, 9 Ariz.App.
State Ex Rel. Herman v. Mestas 469 P.2d 855 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
State Ex Rel. Herman v. Mestas 469 P.2d 855 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Uvodich v. Arizona Board of Regents 453 P.2d 229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Uvodich v. Arizona Board of Regents 453 P.2d 229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
City of Phoenix v. Consolidated Water Company 415 P.2d 866 Ariz. 1966
City of Phoenix v. Consolidated Water Company 415 P.2d 866 Ariz. 1966