Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite City of Scottsdale v. Superior Court, 439 P.2d 290.

44 citing documents.

LEAGUE OF ARIZONA CITIES & TOWNS v. Brewer 146 P.3d 58 Ariz. 2006
LEAGUE OF ARIZONA CITIES & TOWNS v. Brewer 146 P.3d 58 Ariz. 2006
Sherman v. City of Tempe 24 P.3d 1285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Sherman v. City of Tempe 24 P.3d 1285 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Ariz. Const, art. 4, pt.
Babe's Cabaret v. City of Scottsdale 3 P.3d 1018 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Babe's Cabaret v. City of Scottsdale 3 P.3d 1018 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
¶7 Arizona cities and towns are state-created municipal corporations having “no greater powers than those delegated to them by the constitution and the general laws of the state.”
Israel v. Town of Cave Creek 993 P.2d 1114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Israel v. Town of Cave Creek 993 P.2d 1114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
(a municipality has only those powers explicitly granted by the legislature).
Winkle v. City of Tucson 949 P.2d 502 Ariz. 1997
Winkle v. City of Tucson 949 P.2d 502 Ariz. 1997
Robertson v. Graziano 942 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Robertson v. Graziano 942 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
-08 , -94 (1968), in which the court held that due process and the express statutory delegation of zoning power to the city council prohibited amendment of a comprehensive zoning plan by initiative.
Centric-Jones Co. v. Town of Marana 937 P.2d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Centric-Jones Co. v. Town of Marana 937 P.2d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Maricopa County v. Maricopa County Mun.
Jachimek v. Superior Court 819 P.2d 487 Ariz. 1991
Jachimek v. Superior Court 819 P.2d 487 Ariz. 1991
Because municipal zoning authority comes from the state, “the power must be exercised within the limits and in the manner prescribed in the grant and not otherwise.” City of Scottsdale v. Scotts *319 dale Associated Merchants, Inc., , ( , ); see Hart v. Bayless Inv.
Outdoor Systems, Inc. v. City of Mesa 819 P.2d 44 Ariz. 1991
Outdoor Systems, Inc. v. City of Mesa 819 P.2d 44 Ariz. 1991
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
Cota-Robles v. Mayor & Council of Tucson 786 P.2d 994 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Cota-Robles v. Mayor & Council of Tucson 786 P.2d 994 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Clay v. Town of Gilbert 773 P.2d 233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Clay v. Town of Gilbert 773 P.2d 233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Transamerica Title Insurance Co. Trust Nos. 8295, 8297, 8298, 8299, 8300 & 8301 v. City of Tucson 757 P.2d 1055 Ariz. 1988
Transamerica Title Insurance Co. Trust Nos. 8295, 8297, 8298, 8299, 8300 & 8301 v. City of Tucson 757 P.2d 1055 Ariz. 1988
is dispositive of this matter.
Pointe Resorts, Inc. v. Culbertson 750 P.2d 1361 Ariz. 1987
Pointe Resorts, Inc. v. Culbertson 750 P.2d 1361 Ariz. 1987
See, , (city councils have only those powers that are granted in their city charters).
Levitz v. State 613 P.2d 1259 Ariz. 1980
Levitz v. State 613 P.2d 1259 Ariz. 1980
this court specifically held that zoning authority comes from the state.
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
State v. Jacobson 588 P.2d 358 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
State v. Jacobson 588 P.2d 358 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
City of Scottsdale v. Scottsdale Associated Merchants, Inc. 583 P.2d 891 Ariz. 1978
City of Scottsdale v. Scottsdale Associated Merchants, Inc. 583 P.2d 891 Ariz. 1978
this court specifically held that zoning authority comes from the state.
Town of Wickenburg v. State 565 P.2d 1326 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Town of Wickenburg v. State 565 P.2d 1326 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
In addition to the rationale above expressed that a municipality, being merely a creation of the state, can have only those rights expressly granted to it, , the general reasons for denying the municipality standing to bring suit would seem to be two-fold: 1) As a creation of the state, the municipality would not be a proper party to invoke personal rights of its citizens against government interference as it must to a large extent share the interest
Shaffer v. Allt 545 P.2d 76 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Shaffer v. Allt 545 P.2d 76 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Queen Creek Land & Cattle Corp. v. Yavapai County Board of Supervisors 501 P.2d 391 Ariz. 1972
Queen Creek Land & Cattle Corp. v. Yavapai County Board of Supervisors 501 P.2d 391 Ariz. 1972
The availability of injunction through the courts against the use of initiative in a
City of Tempe v. Arizona Board of Regents 461 P.2d 503 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
City of Tempe v. Arizona Board of Regents 461 P.2d 503 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
State of Arizona v. Miser., supra; , 297 P. 1037 , , 300 P. 1010 (1931), A.R.S.