Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Big D Construction Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 789 P.2d 1061.

82 citing documents.

Knight v. Fontes Ariz. 2025
Knight v. Fontes Ariz. 2025
see also, e.g., Personnel Adm’r v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256, 271 (1979) (“The equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment does not take from the States all power of classification.”); Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 631 (1996) (“The Fourteenth Amendment’s promise that no person shall be denied the eq
Arizona Republican Party v. Richer Ariz. 2024
Arizona Republican Party v. Richer Ariz. 2024
Neptune v. Scottsdale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Neptune v. Scottsdale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Greg Shepherd v. Costco Wholesale Corporation Ariz. 2021
Greg Shepherd v. Costco Wholesale Corporation Ariz. 2021
Big D (noting that “reluctance to consider a moot or abstract question is solely a matter of prudential or judicial restraint”).
Burns v. Apsc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Burns v. Apsc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Goernitz v. Pavey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Goernitz v. Pavey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Phoenix Newspapers, ¶ 12 (App. 2001).
Vangilder v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Vangilder v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State of Arizona v. Craig Victor Coleman 385 P.3d 420 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Craig Victor Coleman 385 P.3d 420 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Steve Gallardo v. State of Arizona 336 P.3d 717 Ariz. 2014
Steve Gallardo v. State of Arizona 336 P.3d 717 Ariz. 2014
(noting that “[a] perfect fit is not required”).
Anderson v. Prescott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Anderson v. Prescott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
See Big D Const. Corp. v. Court of Appeals for State of Ariz., Div. One, - 66, -67 (1990); Valley Nat.
Kondaur Capital Corp. v. Pinal County 330 P.3d 379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Kondaur Capital Corp. v. Pinal County 330 P.3d 379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
(courts will consider “significant questions” pursuant to public importance exception to mootness doctrine).
Vong v. Aune 328 P.3d 1057 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Vong v. Aune 328 P.3d 1057 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(internal quotation marks omitted); see also Metropolis Theatre Co. v. City of Chi., 228 U.S. 61, 69-70 (1913) (“The problems of government are practical ones and may justify, if they do not require, rough accommodations, – illogical, it may be, and unscientific.”).
State of Arizona v. Kwame Roy Lowery 287 P.3d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Kwame Roy Lowery 287 P.3d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Coleman v. City of Mesa 284 P.3d 863 Ariz. 2012
Coleman v. City of Mesa 284 P.3d 863 Ariz. 2012
-66, -67 (1990); Ariz. Downs v. Ariz. Horsemen’s Found., and the Colemans have not argued that another standard should apply.
Cardoso v. Soldo 277 P.3d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Cardoso v. Soldo 277 P.3d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Big D Const. Corp. v. Court of Appeals for State of Ariz., Div. One, , Phoenix Newspapers, ¶ 12
Coleman v. City of Mesa 265 P.3d 422 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Coleman v. City of Mesa 265 P.3d 422 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
see also Regan, 461 U.S. at 547 , 103 S.Ct.
Fred Nackard Land Co. v. City of Flagstaff 238 P.3d 149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Fred Nackard Land Co. v. City of Flagstaff 238 P.3d 149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Gamez v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona 141 P.3d 794 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State v. Gomez 127 P.3d 873 Ariz. 2006
MacKey, Schuessler, Bayly v. Mayor and Council of the City of Tucson 96 P.3d 231 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
MacKey, Schuessler, Bayly v. Mayor and Council of the City of Tucson 96 P.3d 231 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
¶5 In response, the Mackeys point to Big D -63, -64 (1990), in which our supreme 1 Although the fact that the transaction was completed does not appear in the record, the City requests that we take judicial notice of the deed as a public record.
Washburn v. Pima County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Washburn v. Pima County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 163 Ariz. 560, 566, quoting Bryant v. Continental Conveyor & Equip.
London v. Broderick 80 P.3d 769 Ariz. 2003
London v. Broderick 80 P.3d 769 Ariz. 2003
v. Court of Appeals, -63, -64 (1990) (noting that this court may, as “a matter of prudential or judicial restraint,” consider moot issues when “significant questions of public importance are presented and are likely to recur”).
Standhardt v. Superior Court 77 P.3d 451 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Standhardt v. Superior Court 77 P.3d 451 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
(“To withstand scrutiny [under the rational basis test], however, the statute must not be arbitrary or irrational ...
Empress Adult Video & Bookstore v. City of Tucson 59 P.3d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Empress Adult Video & Bookstore v. City of Tucson 59 P.3d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Long v. Napolitano 53 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Long v. Napolitano 53 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
[a] perfect fit is not required; a statute that has a rational basis will not be overturned merely because it is not made with mathematical nicety, or because in practice it results in some inequality.” , (internal quotations and citation omitted).
City of Tucson v. Grezaffi 23 P.3d 675 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
City of Tucson v. Grezaffi 23 P.3d 675 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by