Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite City of Phoenix v. Consolidated Water Company, 415 P.2d 866.

37 citing documents.

Kristi C. v. Dcs, A.R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Kristi C. v. Dcs, A.R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
-68 (1954) (unnecessary to make findings on undisputed matters).
Francine C. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Francine C. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
(“Of course, the purpose of findings is to tell someone else how the court reached its decision.” (quoting Carpenters Union, Local 131 v. Cisco Constr.
Lynch v. Brakebill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Lynch v. Brakebill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Water Co., (citing Hurwitz v. Hurwitz, 136 F.2d 796, 799 (D.C.
City of Chandler v. Arizona Department of Transportation 167 P.3d 122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
City of Chandler v. Arizona Department of Transportation 167 P.3d 122 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Water Co., , (holding that the purpose behind requiring the trial court to make findings of fact is to enable an appellate court to examine the basis upon which the trial court relied in reaching its ultimate judgment).
Miller v. BD. OF SUP'RS OF PINAL CTY. 855 P.2d 1357 Ariz. 1993
Miller v. Board of Supervisors 855 P.2d 1357 Ariz. 1993
Miller v. BD. OF SUP'RS OF PINAL CTY. 855 P.2d 1357 Ariz. 1993
("Proper findings are essential to enable [the appellate court] to perform its function of assuring that the findings support the judgment and that the evidence supports the findings.").
Miller v. Board of Supervisors 855 P.2d 1357 Ariz. 1993
(“Proper findings are essential to enable [the appellate court] to perform its function of assuring that the findings support the judgment and that the evidence supports the findings.”).
State v. Ellis 838 P.2d 1310 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Miller v. McAlister 728 P.2d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Miller v. McAlister 728 P.2d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Ellingson v. Fuller, 20 Ariz.App.
United California Bank v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America 681 P.2d 390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
United California Bank v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America 681 P.2d 390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
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
Ellingson v. Fuller 513 P.2d 1339 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Ellingson v. Fuller 513 P.2d 1339 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Gilliland v. Rodriquez, supra.
City of Tucson v. Allen 510 P.2d 764 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
City of Tucson v. Allen 510 P.2d 764 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
State Ex Rel. Herman v. Schaffer 467 P.2d 66 Ariz. 1970
State Ex Rel. Herman v. Schaffer 467 P.2d 66 Ariz. 1970
While we have said that evidence of business earnings is ordinarily improper in condemnation actions, , , it is not every loss of business which is impermissible, , .
Thornton v. SOUTHWEST FLOUR & FEED COMPANY 444 P.2d 747 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Thornton v. SOUTHWEST FLOUR & FEED COMPANY 444 P.2d 747 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Defnet Land & Investment Co. v. State Ex Rel. Herman 442 P.2d 835 Ariz. 1968
Defnet Land & Investment Co. v. State Ex Rel. Herman 442 P.2d 835 Ariz. 1968
State v. Wilson 438 P.2d 760 Ariz. 1968
State v. Wilson 438 P.2d 760 Ariz. 1968
While we have said that evidence of business earnings is ordinarily improper in condemnation actions, , , it is not every loss of business which is impermissible, , .
Arizona Water Company v. City of Yuma 436 P.2d 147 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Arizona Water Company v. City of Yuma 436 P.2d 147 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
to support its contention that it was error to exclude this item as part of severance damages.
Flecha Caida Water Company v. City of Tucson 420 P.2d 198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Flecha Caida Water Company v. City of Tucson 420 P.2d 198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
415 P.2d-866 (1966); , the court held that a certificate of public convenience and necessity held by the water company was “property” for which compensation must be paid.
City of Tucson v. El Rio Water Company 415 P.2d 872 Ariz. 1966
City of Tucson v. El Rio Water Company 415 P.2d 872 Ariz. 1966
we pointed out that Arizona has consistently adhered to the test in condemnation actions as the market value of the property taken to be determined by what a willing buyer would pay and a willing seller would accept.