Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State Ex Rel. Herman v. Schaffer, 467 P.2d 66.

34 citing documents.

State v. foothills/hanke Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. foothills/hanke Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Novak v. Fountain Hills Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Novak v. Fountain Hills Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
City of Phoenix v. John E. Garretson 322 P.3d 149 Ariz. 2014
City of Phoenix v. John E. Garretson 322 P.3d 149 Ariz. 2014
City of Phoenix v. Garretson 302 P.3d 640 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
City of Phoenix v. Garretson 302 P.3d 640 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
De Alfy Properties v. Pima County 985 P.2d 522 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
De Alfy Properties v. Pima County 985 P.2d 522 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
City of Phoenix v. Leroy's Liquors, Inc. 868 P.2d 958 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
City of Phoenix v. Leroy's Liquors, Inc. 868 P.2d 958 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
-486 , -74 (1970), the supreme court stated that evidence of loss of business may be used to show “a diminution in the highest and best use of the property,” but the damages should not reflect “noncompensable factors” such as loss of customers, business, goodwill, income, or profits.
Dixon v. City of Phoenix 845 P.2d 1107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Dixon v. City of Phoenix 845 P.2d 1107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. v. City of Phoenix 815 P.2d 932 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. v. City of Phoenix 815 P.2d 932 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
259, 261 , (loss of customers, business, or profits non-compensable as independent items of damages but only evidence of decrease in property value after taking, , ); State ex rel.
State Ex Rel. Ordway v. Buchanan 741 P.2d 292 Ariz. 1987
State Ex Rel. Ordway v. Buchanan 741 P.2d 292 Ariz. 1987
Selective Resources v. Superior Court 700 P.2d 849 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Selective Resources v. Superior Court 700 P.2d 849 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. State 662 P.2d 157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. State 662 P.2d 157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
City of Yuma v. Lattie 572 P.2d 108 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
City of Yuma v. Lattie 572 P.2d 108 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State Ex Rel. Herman v. Schaffer 515 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1973
State Ex Rel. Herman v. Schaffer 515 P.2d 593 Ariz. 1973
Tucson Title Insurance Co. v. State Ex Rel. Herman 489 P.2d 299 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Tucson Title Insurance Co. v. State Ex Rel. Herman 489 P.2d 299 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Defnet Land & Investment Co. v. State Ex Rel. Herman 480 P.2d 1013 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Defnet Land & Investment Co. v. State Ex Rel. Herman 480 P.2d 1013 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
wherein the court held, in limited access situations, that owners of land do not have a right of direct ingress and egress to and from a controlled access thoroughfare.
Choisser v. State Ex Rel. Herman 469 P.2d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Choisser v. State Ex Rel. Herman 469 P.2d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Olson v. State 467 P.2d 945 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Olson v. State 467 P.2d 945 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970