Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Outdoor Systems, Inc. v. City of Mesa, 819 P.2d 44.

30 citing documents.

Novak v. Fountain Hills Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Novak v. Fountain Hills Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
§ 9-462(A)(5) (defining a “zoning ordinance” as “a municipal ordinance regulating the use of the land or structures, or both”); Outdoor Sys., (“Zoning is fundamentally the control of land use.”); Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) (defining “zoning ordinance” as “[a] city ordinance that regulates the use to which land within various parts of the city may be put”).
Stagecoach Trails MHC, L.L.C. v. City of Benson 295 P.3d 943 Ariz. 2013
Stagecoach Trails MHC, L.L.C. v. City of Benson 295 P.3d 943 Ariz. 2013
Outdoor Sys., Patricia E. Salkin, 2 American Law of Zoning § 12.36 (5th ed. 2012).
Northwest Fire District v. U.S. Home of Arizona Construction Co. 143 P.3d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Northwest Fire District v. U.S. Home of Arizona Construction Co. 143 P.3d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
may” engage in such activities); see also Outdoor Sys., , (legislature’s use of word “may” implies provision is permissive).
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. 105 P.3d 1163 Ariz. 2005
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. 105 P.3d 1163 Ariz. 2005
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. 78 P.3d 1056 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. 78 P.3d 1056 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Bunker's Glass Co. v. PILKINGTON, PLC 75 P.3d 99 Ariz. 2003
Michael R. Gray, M.D. v. Philip Morris Usa Ariz. 2003
Criticized Bunker's Glass Co. v. PILKINGTON, PLC 75 P.3d 99 Ariz. 2003
Bunker’s I, 202 Ariz. at 488-89, ¶ 29 , 47 P.3d at 1126-27 *13 (concluding that the legislature’s use of the word “may” in § 44-1412 describes permissive conduct); see also Outdoor Sys.
Criticized Michael R. Gray, M.D. v. Philip Morris Usa Ariz. 2003
Bunker’s I, 202 Ariz. at 488-89, ¶ 29, 47 P.3d at 1126-27 (concluding that the legislature’s use of the word “may” in § 44-1412 describes permissive conduct); see also Outdoor Sys.
Bunker's Glass Co. v. Pilkington PlC 47 P.3d 1119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Bunker's Glass Co. v. Pilkington PlC 47 P.3d 1119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
See, e.g., Outdoor Sys., , *489 307, ¶ 7
Jones v. County of Coconino 35 P.3d 422 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Jones v. County of Coconino 35 P.3d 422 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Outdoor Sys., 307 , 50 (1991).
Motel 6 Operating Ltd. Partnership v. City of Flagstaff 991 P.2d 272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Motel 6 Operating Ltd. Partnership v. City of Flagstaff 991 P.2d 272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
(county may prohibit expansion of nonconforming use onto other property); Outdoor Systems, , (city can require removal of nonconforming signs as a condition to issuance of building permits for new development); Circle K -69 , -62 (App.1990) (city could require removal or modification of nonconforming signs as a condition t
City of Tucson v. Whiteco Metrocom, Inc. 983 P.2d 759 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
City of Tucson v. Whiteco Metrocom, Inc. 983 P.2d 759 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Outdoor Systems v. City of Mesa, 997 F.2d 604 (9th Cir.1993)
Whiteco Outdoor Advertising v. City of Tucson 972 P.2d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Whiteco Outdoor Advertising v. City of Tucson 972 P.2d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
See Outdoor Systems, , Gannett.
City of Glendale v. Aldabbagh 939 P.2d 418 Ariz. 1997
City of Glendale v. Aldabbagh 939 P.2d 418 Ariz. 1997
Consequently, “nonconforming uses are excepted from the general rule that zoning ordinances should be strictly construed in favor of the property owner.” Outdoor Systems
Watahomigie v. BD. OF WATER QUALITY APP. 887 P.2d 550 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Watahomigie v. BD. OF WATER QUALITY APP. 887 P.2d 550 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Watahomigie v. Arizona Board of Water Quality Appeals 887 P.2d 550 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Watahomigie v. Arizona Board of Water Quality Appeals 887 P.2d 550 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994