Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite City of Prescott v. Town of Chino Valley, 803 P.2d 891.

45 citing documents.

Desert Mountain v. Flagstaff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Desert Mountain v. Flagstaff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
to inform the public of the matters to be discussed or decided.” (quoting A.R.S.
Shao v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Shao v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
.” Jett, 180 Ariz. at 121 (alterations in original) ( vacated in part on other grounds
Puente v. Asl Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Puente v. Asl Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Abc v. Flood Control Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Abc v. Flood Control Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
This exception is not limited to privileged or otherwise inherently confidential lawyer-client communications, - 85 (1990), but we must also “take care not to interpret ‘legal advice’ so broadly as to frustrate the Open Meeting Law by allowing public bodies to delegate responsibilities to attorneys and then cloak negotiations and executive sessions in secrecy by having the attorneys present,” Fisher v. Maricopa Cty.
Lunney v. State 418 P.3d 943 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Lunney v. State 418 P.3d 943 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(“legal advice” encompasses advice given to a public body “regarding the legal ramifications of the facts and information given” and “the legality” of the proposed action) ().
State v. Coles 324 P.3d 859 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Coles 324 P.3d 859 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
vacated in part on other grounds, P.2d 891 (1990).
Wonders v. Pima County 89 P.3d 810 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Wonders v. Pima County 89 P.3d 810 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
“ ‘Mere commonality of some aspect of subject matter is insufficient ----’” Id., , vacated on other grounds
TANQUE VERDE UNIFIED SCHOOL v. Bernini 76 P.3d 874 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
TANQUE VERDE UNIFIED SCHOOL v. Bernini 76 P.3d 874 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. State 44 P.3d 1006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. State 44 P.3d 1006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
affirmed in part and vacated in part on other grounds, , the tax court in this case elected to apportion the tax on its own authority to comply with constitutional requirements.
In re United States Currency In Amount of $26,980.00 18 P.3d 85 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
In re United States Currency In Amount of $26,980.00 18 P.3d 85 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
In re U.S. Currency in the Amount of $315,900.00, , see also City of Prescott v. Town, of Chino Valley
Johnson v. Tempe Elementary School District No. 3 Governing Board 20 P.3d 1148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Johnson v. Tempe Elementary School District No. 3 Governing Board 20 P.3d 1148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
¶ 12 , and this court in Fisher, 185 Ariz. at 124 , 912 P.2d at 1353 , considered the scope of “legal advice.” In those cases, the courts interpreted “legal advice” under section 38-431.03(A)(3) to include advice concerning potential legislation (Prescott) and negotiation of an agreement mixi
City of Tucson v. Consumers for Retail Choice 5 P.2d 934 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
City of Tucson v. Consumers for Retail Choice 5 P.2d 934 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
“Mere commonality of some aspect of subject matter is insufficient,” and the ordinance and the statute must not be “capable of peaceful coexistence.” , vacated in part on other grounds, , -22 , -33 (1994).
In Re Estate of Shumway 3 P.3d 977 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
In Re Estate of Shumway 3 P.3d 977 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
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
Mere commonality of some aspect of subject matter is insufficient____ , vacated in part on other grounds, , (citations omitted).
Rodriguez v. Gavette 3 P.3d 977 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Rodriguez v. Gavette 3 P.3d 977 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
City of Tucson v. Rineer 971 P.2d 207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
City of Tucson v. Rineer 971 P.2d 207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Mere commonality of some aspect of subject matter is insufficient____ Jett, 180 Ariz. at 121 , 882 P.2d at 432 , , vacated in part on other grounds
Winkle v. City of Tucson 949 P.2d 502 Ariz. 1997
Winkle v. City of Tucson 949 P.2d 502 Ariz. 1997
See City of Prescott v. Town of *417 Chino Valley, , vacated in part on other grounds, , Mercurio, 153 Ariz. at 340 , 736 P.2d at 823 .
State v. Garcia 931 P.2d 427 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
State v. Garcia 931 P.2d 427 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
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
See , vacated in part on other grounds, , (where Town of Chino Valley’s authority to impose transaction privilege tax on Prescott’s gross income from groundwater pumping activities within town limits was under attack, no question was raised concerning Town’s legal power to impose transaction privilege tax measured by volume of business).
Fisher v. Maricopa County Stadium District 912 P.2d 1345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Fisher v. Maricopa County Stadium District 912 P.2d 1345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
486 n. 4, , 897 n. 4 (1990).
Jett v. City of Tucson 882 P.2d 426 Ariz. 1994
Jett v. City of Tucson 882 P.2d 426 Ariz. 1994
Mere commonality of some aspect of subject matter is insufficient____ , vacated in part on other grounds, , (citations omitted).
RUVALCABA BY STUBBLEFIELD v. Ruvalcaba 850 P.2d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
RUVALCABA BY STUBBLEFIELD v. Ruvalcaba 850 P.2d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Arizona Board of Regents v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 806 P.2d 348 Ariz. 1991