Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Pioneer Trust Co. v. Pima County, 811 P.2d 22.

54 citing documents.

Roundtree v. Page Ariz. 2025
Roundtree v. Page Ariz. 2025
Voice v. Hall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Voice v. Hall Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
) (“[A]n act that declares a public purpose and provides for the ways and means of its accomplishment is legislative.”).
Workers v. Tempe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Workers v. Tempe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Wennerstrom, 169 Ariz. at 489
SHANE NOEL JONES and VICTORIA CRANFORD v. RESPECT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE 517 P.3d 1188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
SHANE NOEL JONES and VICTORIA CRANFORD v. RESPECT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE 517 P.3d 1188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
see also Sklar, ] is to ensure that the public has immediate and full disclosure of the exact public action that may be reversed.”).
Else v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Else v. Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Taxpayers v. Price 418 P.3d 1103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
Taxpayers v. Price 418 P.3d 1103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
see also Pioneer Trust Co. v. Pima County , , 66, , 27 (1991) (conditional approval of rezoning subject to referendum).
State Ex Rel Brnovich v. City of tucson/dewit 399 P.3d 663 Ariz. 2017
State Ex Rel Brnovich v. City of tucson/dewit 399 P.3d 663 Ariz. 2017
at 277 , 942 P.2d at 436 (stating that “acts necessary to carry out the legislative policies and purposes already declared by [the Legislature] are administrative” and, thus, “executive function[s]”) (first alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) ( , ).
Fidelity National Title v. Town of Marana Bronson Nessinger Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Fidelity National Title v. Town of Marana Bronson Nessinger Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
4 ¶7 -69, -30 (1991), our supreme court addressed a nearly identical dispute.
Gregg Forszt And Vestar Arizona Xli, L.L.C. v. F. Ann Rodriguez and Stop O v. Outrageous Giveaways Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Gregg Forszt And Vestar Arizona Xli, L.L.C. v. F. Ann Rodriguez and Stop O v. Outrageous Giveaways Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Feldmeier v. Watson 123 P.3d 180 Ariz. 2005
Feldmeier v. Watson 123 P.3d 180 Ariz. 2005
ence address or post - 6 - B ¶11 We have long “recognized Arizona’s strong public policy favoring the initiative and referendum.” W. Devcor, ( ).
Redelsperger v. City of Avondale 87 P.3d 843 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Redelsperger v. City of Avondale 87 P.3d 843 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
§§ 9-462.03 (amendment procedure), and 9-462.04 (public hearing requirement) (Supp.2003); , (conditional approval of an application to rezone is a legislative act).
Robson Ranch Mountains, L.L. C. v. Pinal County 51 P.3d 342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Robson Ranch Mountains, L.L. C. v. Pinal County 51 P.3d 342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Hause v. City of Tucson 19 P.3d 640 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Hause v. City of Tucson 19 P.3d 640 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
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
(“Absent constitutional or statutory proscription of such surplusage, we choose not to silence the voice of the people because of it.”).
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
Grosvenor Holdings L.C. v. City of Peoria 985 P.2d 622 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Grosvenor Holdings L.C. v. City of Peoria 985 P.2d 622 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
In answering that question here
Simpson v. Committee Against Unconstitutional Takings, L.L.C. 972 P.2d 1027 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Distinguished Simpson v. Committee Against Unconstitutional Takings, L.L.C. 972 P.2d 1027 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
the trial court found the referendum petition invalid and enjoined the City from holding the election.
Fritz v. City of Kingman 957 P.2d 337 Ariz. 1998
Fritz v. City of Kingman 957 P.2d 337 Ariz. 1998
(even a city’s conditional approval of an application for rezoning is subject to referendum); , (“It is well settled that the passage of an original zoning ordinance is the exercise of a legislative function.”).
Sherrill v. City of Peoria 943 P.2d 1215 Ariz. 1997
Sherrill v. City of Peoria 943 P.2d 1215 Ariz. 1997
§ 19-111 (Historical and Statutory Notes, Laws 1989, ch. 10, § 1); , (inclusion of “surplus material” with petition did not render petition defective; reiterating that “the judicial branch has no power to keep the proposal off the ballot simply because we might believe the matter has not been submitted to the people in a fair form.”) (quoting Tilson v. Moff
State Ex Rel. Woods v. Block 942 P.2d 428 Ariz. 1997
State Ex Rel. Woods v. Block 942 P.2d 428 Ariz. 1997
(citing Lincoln Property Co. No. 41 v. Law, 45 Cal.App.3d 230 , 119 Cal.Rptr.
Airness & Accountability in Insurance Reform v. Greene 886 P.2d 1338 Ariz. 1994
FAIRNESS & ACCT. IN INS. REFORM v. Greene 886 P.2d 1338 Ariz. 1994
Airness & Accountability in Insurance Reform v. Greene 886 P.2d 1338 Ariz. 1994
”[A]cts necessaty to carry out the legislative policies and purposes already declared by [the legislature] are administrative.” , (citing Lincoln Property Co. No. 41, Inc. v. Law, 45 Cal.App.3d 230 , 119 Cal.Rptr.
FAIRNESS & ACCT. IN INS. REFORM v. Greene 886 P.2d 1338 Ariz. 1994
(citing Lincoln Property Co. No. 41, Inc. v. Law, 45 Cal.
State v. Oakley 881 P.2d 366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Oakley 881 P.2d 366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
the Supreme Court of Arizona noted that a referendum petition regarding a county zoning ordinance had to be filed within thirty days after its passage in accordance with A.R.S.
Arizona Corp. Commission v. State Ex Rel. Woods 830 P.2d 807 Ariz. 1992
Arizona Corp. Commission v. State Ex Rel. Woods 830 P.2d 807 Ariz. 1992
§ 12.120.21(A)(4) (granting court of appeals jurisdiction to hear special action petitions "without regard to its appellate jurisdiction”) , 64 n. 1, , 25 n. 1 (1991) (recognizing that establishment of court of appeals generally understood impliedly to amend statutory grants of jurisdiction to supreme court).
Perini Land & Development Co. v. Pima County 825 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1992
Perini Land & Development Co. v. Pima County 825 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1992

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by