Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Desert Waters, Inc. v. Superior Court, 370 P.2d 652.

67 citing documents.

State v. McCcd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State ex rel. Brnovich v. Maricopa County Community College District Board 395 P.3d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. McCcd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
“When statutes relate to the same subject matter, the later enactment, in the absence of any express repeal or amendment therein, is held to have been enacted in accord with the legislative policy embodied in [t]he earlier statute.” Desert Waters, ( and then United States v. Arizona, 295 U.S. 174, 191 (1935)).
State ex rel. Brnovich v. Maricopa County Community College District Board 395 P.3d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
“When statutes relate to the same subject matter, the later enactment, in the absence of any express repeal or amendment therein, is held to have been enacted in accord with the legislative policy embodied in [t]he earlier statute.” Desert Waters, , ( , and then United States v. Arizona, 295 U.S. 174, 191 , 55 S.Ct.
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
See Calmat, 176 Ariz. at 192-93, 859 P.2d at 1325-26 (legislature may specify 7 “some convenient time” for assessing value), citing Desert Waters
State v. Haney 219 P.3d 274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Haney 219 P.3d 274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
This language governs justification defenses generally, and is consistent with the settled rule of statutory construction that “[i]n so far as the provisions of a special statute are inconsistent with those of a general statute on the same subject, the special statute will control.” Desert Waters, Inc. v. Superior Court (City of Tucson), , ( , Whitfield Trans., , ).
Reed v. Burke 199 P.3d 702 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Reed v. Burke 199 P.3d 702 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
City of Scottsdale v. CGP-Aberdeen, L.L.C. 177 P.3d 1198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
City of Scottsdale v. CGP-Aberdeen, L.L.C. 177 P.3d 1198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Amicus APS argues that the Legislature may choose any reasonable date on which to value property taken through eminent domain, referring to the supreme court’s statement in Desert Waters, Inc. v. Superior Court (City of Tucson), , that "the legislature may establish some convenient time[] as of which the value of the property will be assessed and the amount of compensation fixed.” APS also relies on our interpretation of that statement in Flood Control Dist.
Steiger v. Woods 32 P.3d 19 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Steiger v. Woods 32 P.3d 19 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Rather, “[wjhen statutes relate to the same subject matter, the later enactment, in the absence of any express repeal or amendment therein, is held to have been enacted in accord with the legislative policy embodied in the earlier statute.” Larson, 106 Ariz. at 122 , 471 P.2d at 734 (quoting Desert Waters, , ).
City of Casa Grande v. Arizona Water Co. 20 P.3d 590 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
City of Casa Grande v. Arizona Water Co. 20 P.3d 590 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
The City relies on Desert Waters, , for the proposition that “it is not necessary for a city to conduct an election each and every time it seeks to acquire public utility property, so long as it has existing authority either by a charter provision or other publicly voted upon measure permits ting the city to engage in that utility
Kotterman v. Killian 972 P.2d 606 Ariz. 1999
Kotterman v. Killian 972 P.2d 606 Ariz. 1999
See Desert Waters, -68 , (noting that while a certain provision of Washington’s constitution was “identical” to Arizona’s, “it becomes apparent that the same meaning and effect was not intended by its adoption”).
Roosevelt Elementary School District Number 66 v. Bishop 877 P.2d 806 Ariz. 1994
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
We held in Desert Waters, Inc. v. Superior Court that a property owner does not have the constitutional right to have his or her compensation fixed as of a particular *193 date, and that “the legislature may establish some convenient time, as of which the value of the property will be assessed and the amount of compensation fixed.”
Drexel Heights Fire District v. City of Tucson 858 P.2d 321 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Drexel Heights Fire District v. City of Tucson 858 P.2d 321 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Desert Waters, , (general statute remains applicable to all matters not dealt with in specific statute).
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
In Desert Waters, , the Arizona Supreme Court dispelled the notion that a condemnee has the right to have compensation fixed as of a particular date and upheld the right of the legislature to establish some convenient time for valuing property.
Hibbs v. Chandler Ginning Co. 790 P.2d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Hibbs v. Chandler Ginning Co. 790 P.2d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Moore v. City of Page 713 P.2d 813 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Moore v. City of Page 713 P.2d 813 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
See City of Mesa v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District, , Desert Waters
FLOOD CONTROL DIST. OF MARICOPA CTY. v. Hing 709 P.2d 1351 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
FLOOD CONTROL DIST. OF MARICOPA CTY. v. Hing 709 P.2d 1351 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
We find the issue is controlled by our supreme court’s decision in Desert Waters
Brown Wholesale Electric Co. v. Merchants Mutual Bonding Co. 713 P.2d 291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Brown Wholesale Electric Co. v. Merchants Mutual Bonding Co. 713 P.2d 291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Tucson Airport Authority v. Freilich 665 P.2d 1007 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Tucson Airport Authority v. Freilich 665 P.2d 1007 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
This principle was recognized in Desert Waters, , the court holding that while the legislature can make the date of the summons, the date of trial, or some other date the punctum temporis, entry under an order of immediate possession prior to judgment requires the condemning authority on constitutional grounds to pay interest from the date of t
McElhaney Cattle Co. v. Smith 645 P.2d 801 Ariz. 1982
McElhaney Cattle Co. v. Smith 645 P.2d 801 Ariz. 1982
Desert Waters, Inc. v. *290 Superior Court
State Ex Rel. La Sota v. Arizona Licensed Beverage Ass'n 627 P.2d 666 Ariz. 1981
State Ex Rel. La Sota v. Arizona Licensed Beverage Ass'n 627 P.2d 666 Ariz. 1981
Where two acts are in conflict, we will read them together and harmonize them if possible, and: “* * * In so far as the provisions of a special statute are inconsistent with those of a general statute on the same subject, the special statute will control.” Desert Waters
Arizona State Tax Commission v. Phelps Dodge Corp. 568 P.2d 1073 Ariz. 1977
Arizona State Tax Commission v. Phelps Dodge Corp. 568 P.2d 1073 Ariz. 1977
’ ” , quoting from Desert Waters
City of Phoenix v. McCullough 536 P.2d 230 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
City of Yuma v. Arizona Water Co. 522 P.2d 765 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
City of Yuma v. Arizona Water Co. 522 P.2d 765 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Our Supreme Court noted in Desert Waters, , that A.R.S.
Citizens Utilities Water Co. v. Superior Court 497 P.2d 55 Ariz. 1972
Citizens Utilities Water Co. v. Superior Court 497 P.2d 55 Ariz. 1972
This issue was decided in Desert Waters, , , where a water company attempted to prohibit the city of Tucson from proceeding with its condemnation suit.
Beasley v. Industrial Commission 489 P.2d 57 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
State Ex Rel. Larson v. Farley 471 P.2d 731 Ariz. 1970
State Ex Rel. Larson v. Farley 471 P.2d 731 Ariz. 1970
Under the rule that statutes dealing with the same subject should read together and harmonized [sic] if at all possible, * * * [cases cited.]’’ In the later case of Desert Waters, , , we re-affirmed this rule when we said: “Statutes that are in pari materia should be read together and harmonized if at all possible
Arizona State Highway Commission v. Nelson 459 P.2d 509 Ariz. 1969