Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Mueller v. City of Phoenix Ex Rel. Phoenix Board of Adjustment II, 435 P.2d 472.

60 citing documents.

Gregory Real v. Keegan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Gregory Real v. Keegan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Goernitz v. Pavey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Goernitz v. Pavey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Pawn 1st LLC v. City of Phoenix/jachimek 399 P.3d 94 Ariz. 2017
Pawn 1st LLC v. City of Phoenix/jachimek 399 P.3d 94 Ariz. 2017
of Adjustment II, see also A.R.S.
Adams v. Giguere Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Adams v. Giguere Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Warner v. Phx Board Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Warner v. Phx Board Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
We will not substitute our judgment for that of the Board, nor will we reweigh the evidence or “consider the probative force of conflicting testimony.”
Levine v. phoenix/suns Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Levine v. phoenix/suns Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
We will not substitute our judgment for that of the Board, reweigh the evidence, or “consider the probative force of conflicting testimony.”
Robertson v. La Paz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Robertson v. La Paz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
of Adjustment II, 3 Edward H. Ziegler, Jr., Rathkopf’s The Law of Zoning and Planning § 62:36 (Arden H. Rathkopf et al. eds., 4th ed. 2013) (“A court will not substitute its own judgment for that of a board unless it is demonstrated that the latter’s decision is arbitrary, contrary to law, or not support
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. 181 P.3d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. 181 P.3d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
¶ 31 The common law on nonconforming uses generally disfavors expansion or enlargement of the use as contrary to the “spirit underlying zoning[, which] is to restrict rather than to increase nonconforming uses.” Rotter, 169 Ariz. at 277 , 818 P.2d at 712 (emphasis omitted), , (Struckmeyer, J., dissenting).
Austin Shea (Arizona) 7th Street & Van Buren, L.L.C. v. City of Phoenix 142 P.3d 693 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Austin Shea (Arizona) 7th Street & Van Buren, L.L.C. v. City of Phoenix 142 P.3d 693 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
(internal citation omitted); , (court will not substitute its judgment for that of board even when the question is “ ‘debatable and one in which the court would have reached a different conclusion had it been the original arbitor of the issues’”) (citation omitted).
Rotter v. Coconino County 818 P.2d 704 Ariz. 1991
Rotter v. Coconino County 818 P.2d 704 Ariz. 1991
(citations omitted); see also Circle K Corp., 166 Ariz. at 467 , 803 P.2d at 460 ; County Council, 443 A.2d at 119 (local ordinances regarding nonconforming uses must be strictly construed in order to effectuate the purpose of eliminating nonconforming uses).
Circle K Corp. v. City of Mesa 803 P.2d 457 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Circle K Corp. v. City of Mesa 803 P.2d 457 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Rotter v. Coconino County 805 P.2d 1019 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Rotter v. Coconino County 805 P.2d 1019 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
(Struckmeyer, J., dissenting), the lone dissenting justice noted that: [I]t has been held by the most respected courts in the country that nonconforming uses are to be eliminated as rapidly as *204 possible.
M & M Auto Storage Pool, Inc. v. Chemical Waste Management, Inc. 791 P.2d 665 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
M & M Auto Storage Pool, Inc. v. Chemical Waste Management, Inc. 791 P.2d 665 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Torres v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. 786 P.2d 939 Ariz. 1990
Torres v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. 786 P.2d 939 Ariz. 1990
of Adjustment II, , (appellate court need not decide moot questions or abstract propositions); , (Supreme Court is confined to determining the law on issues arising out of actual facts, and cannot determine what the law or rule may be upon a supposi
Gannett Outdoor Co. v. City of Mesa 768 P.2d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Gannett Outdoor Co. v. City of Mesa 768 P.2d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
-87 , -84 (1967) (Struckmeyer, J., dissenting).
Blake v. City of Phoenix 754 P.2d 1368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Blake v. City of Phoenix 754 P.2d 1368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Bartolomeo v. Town of Paradise Valley 631 P.2d 564 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Bartolomeo v. Town of Paradise Valley 631 P.2d 564 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Hart v. Bayless Investment & Trading Co., , City of Phoenix v. Collins, 22 Ariz.App.
Pima County v. Cardi 600 P.2d 37 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Pima County v. Cardi 600 P.2d 37 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
But cf., , (Struckmeyer, J., dissenting) (statutes permitting non-conforming uses are to be strictly construed against the non-conforming user).
Arizona Department of Public Safety v. Dowd 573 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Arizona Department of Public Safety v. Dowd 573 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Dye v. City of Phoenix 542 P.2d 31 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Dye v. City of Phoenix 542 P.2d 31 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
City of Tempe v. Rasor, 24 Ariz.App.
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.
Ivancovich v. City of Tucson Board of Adjustment 529 P.2d 242 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Followed Ivancovich v. City of Tucson Board of Adjustment 529 P.2d 242 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
horized unless the board specifically finds that the condition or situation of the specific piece of property for which the variance is sought is not of so typical or recurrent a nature as to make reasonably practicable the formulation of a general regulation for such conditions or situations.” (Emphasis added) , : “A Board cannot create jurisdiction by finding a fact upon which its jurisdiction depends without evidence in support thereof.
City of Phoenix v. Collins 524 P.2d 1318 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
City of Phoenix v. Collins 524 P.2d 1318 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
These general legal concepts have been followed in a series of Arizona cases: , , City of Phoenix v. Beall, 22 Ariz.App.
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
East Camelback Homeowners Ass'n v. Arizona Foundation for Neurology & Psychiatry 500 P.2d 906 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
East Camelback Homeowners Ass'n v. Arizona Foundation for Neurology & Psychiatry 500 P.2d 906 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Phoenix Board of Adjustment II

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by