Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Western Devcor, Inc. v. City of Scottsdale, 814 P.2d 767.

73 citing documents.

Grosvenor Holdings L.C. v. City of Peoria 985 P.2d 622 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
permit substantial compliance in the initiative context, but require strict compliance in the referendum context.” Western Devcor, , (citations omitted).
Simpson v. Committee Against Unconstitutional Takings, L.L.C. 972 P.2d 1027 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Simpson v. Committee Against Unconstitutional Takings, L.L.C. 972 P.2d 1027 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
¶ 9 A referendum petition must “comply strictly with applicable constitutional and statutory provisions.” Western Devcor
McDowell Mountain Ranch Land Coalition v. Vizcaino 945 P.2d 312 Ariz. 1997
McDowell Mountain Ranch Land Coalition v. Vizcaino 945 P.2d 312 Ariz. 1997
Sherrill v. City of Peoria 943 P.2d 1215 Ariz. 1997
Sherrill v. City of Peoria 943 P.2d 1215 Ariz. 1997
We determined previously that a referendum petition must “comply strictly with applicable constitutional and statutory provisions.” Western Devcor, , (citing Cottonwood Dev.
Soto v. Superior Court 949 P.2d 539 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Soto v. Superior Court 949 P.2d 539 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Soto cites Western Devcor, , to support his contention that the “delay” renders the measure invalid because the legislative process requires strict compliance with constitutional mandates.
Sherrill v. City of Peoria 930 P.2d 505 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Sherrill v. City of Peoria 930 P.2d 505 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Homebuilders Ass'n of Central Arizona v. City of Scottsdale 925 P.2d 1359 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Homebuilders Ass'n of Central Arizona v. City of Scottsdale 925 P.2d 1359 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Western Devcor, -29 , -70 (1991) (citations omitted) (finding referendum petitions invalid for failure to comply with requirement that petition circulators did not indicate belief that each signer was a qualified elector); see also Perini, 170 Ariz. at 383 , 825 P.2d at 4 (concluding that “last preceding” electio
Van Riper v. Threadgill 905 P.2d 589 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Van Riper v. Threadgill 905 P.2d 589 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
De Szendeffy v. Threadgill 874 P.2d 1021 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
De Szendeffy v. Threadgill 874 P.2d 1021 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Western Devcor, , see also Perini Land & Dev.
Barry v. Alberty 843 P.2d 1279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Barry v. Alberty 843 P.2d 1279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
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
In Western Devcor, , we recently considered the extraordinary power of the ref *383 erendum and reaffirmed the distinction between the standard of compliance with constitutional provisions required in initiative cases and referendum cases: We permit substantial compliance in the initiative context, ...
Wennerstrom v. City of Mesa 821 P.2d 146 Ariz. 1991
Wennerstrom v. City of Mesa 821 P.2d 146 Ariz. 1991