Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Robinson v. Lintz, 420 P.2d 923.

42 citing documents.

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
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. 105 P.3d 1163 Ariz. 2005
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. 105 P.3d 1163 Ariz. 2005
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Martin 69 P.3d 1000 Ariz. 2003
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Martin 69 P.3d 1000 Ariz. 2003
Southwest Soil Remediation, Inc. v. City of Tucson 36 P.3d 1208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Southwest Soil Remediation, Inc. v. City of Tucson 36 P.3d 1208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
1372 (D.Ariz.1985); , , to support its claim that it had vested rights in the completion of the project.
Ford v. State 979 P.2d 10 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Ford v. State 979 P.2d 10 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Luchanski v. Officer J.L. Congrove 971 P.2d 636 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Luchanski v. Officer J.L. Congrove 971 P.2d 636 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
In Re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Action No. J-78632 712 P.2d 431 Ariz. 1986
In Re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Action No. J-78632 712 P.2d 431 Ariz. 1986
City of Phoenix v. Superior Court 677 P.2d 1283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
City of Phoenix v. Super. Ct., Maricopa Cty. 677 P.2d 1283 Ariz. 1984
City of Phoenix v. Superior Court 677 P.2d 1283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
City of Phoenix v. Super. Ct., Maricopa Cty. 677 P.2d 1283 Ariz. 1984
McIntyre v. Mohave County 620 P.2d 696 Ariz. 1980
McIntyre v. Mohave County 620 P.2d 696 Ariz. 1980
Valley National Bank of Arizona v. Educational Credit Bureau, Inc.
Bella Vista Ranches, Inc. v. City of Sierra Vista 613 P.2d 302 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Bella Vista Ranches, Inc. v. City of Sierra Vista 613 P.2d 302 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
our Supreme Court held that counties did not have the power to require approval of subdivision plats unless the power was expressly conferred by statute, notwithstanding that counties had express authority to plan.
Rollo v. City of Tempe 586 P.2d 1285 Ariz. 1978
Rollo v. City of Tempe 586 P.2d 1285 Ariz. 1978
Dawe v. City of Scottsdale 581 P.2d 1136 Ariz. 1978
Dawe v. City of Scottsdale 581 P.2d 1136 Ariz. 1978
*488 Appellants, however, , holds that a subdivision lot becomes legally established as to size and description when it is properly recorded and that it is unaffected by subsequent zoning enactments or amendments.
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
We decide this issue by holding that the subdivision plat prevails against subsequent zoning change, a result which we think is compelled by the only Arizona Supreme Court case dealing with the subject, namely
Pima County v. Arizona Title Insurance & Trust Co. 565 P.2d 524 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Pima County v. Arizona Title Insurance & Trust Co. 565 P.2d 524 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
(holding that lots in subdivisions became “legally established” when the plat was properly recorded, thus establishing a “right to act upon subdivision plans complying with zoning regulations then in existence .
State v. Rice 516 P.2d 1222 Ariz. 1973
State v. Rice 516 P.2d 1222 Ariz. 1973
Arizona State Tax Commission v. Reiser 512 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1973
Arizona State Tax Commission v. Reiser 512 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1973
State v. Airesearch Mfg.
County of Maricopa v. Anzwool, Inc. 506 P.2d 282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
County of Maricopa v. Anzwool, Inc. 506 P.2d 282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
1016 (1926); , , is decisive of the question.
Navajo Freight Lines, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance 471 P.2d 309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Navajo Freight Lines, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance 471 P.2d 309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
City of Scottsdale v. Superior Court 439 P.2d 290 Ariz. 1968
City of Scottsdale v. Superior Court 439 P.2d 290 Ariz. 1968
A; and it is a well-established general rule that when the legislature grants to a municipal corporation power to do any act and prescribes the manner in which the power shall be exercised, the power must be exercised in the manner stated in the grant and not otherwise, , ; Phillips Petroleum Company v. City of Park Ridge, 16 Ill.App.2d 555 , 149 N.E.2d 344 .
Brecheisen v. Paris 436 P.2d 610 Ariz. 1968
Brecheisen v. Paris 436 P.2d 610 Ariz. 1968
First National Bank of Arizona v. Otis Elevator Co., 2 Ariz.App.