Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Home Builders Ass'n v. City of Scottsdale, 930 P.2d 993.

42 citing documents.

Hv Canal v. Adot Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Hv Canal v. Adot Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
McPherson v. McPherson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
McPherson v. McPherson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
(holding that where statute is clear, courts do not “read[] into the law words the legislature did not choose to include”).
Southern Arizona Home Builders v. Town of Marana Ariz. 2023
Southern Arizona Home Builders v. Town of Marana Ariz. 2023
Because the statute governing development fees was substantially changed following our seminal decision applying its prior provisions, we interpret the statute afresh in light of the revised statute’s significant constraints on and requirements for the imposition of such fees.
American Furniture v. Gilbert 425 P.3d 1099 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
American Furniture v. Gilbert 425 P.3d 1099 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Ariz. v. City of Scottsdale indicated that Dolan’s “rough proportionality” test does not apply to generally applicable zoning regulations (“a generally applicable legislative decision by the city”), as opposed to “a city’s adjudicative decision to impose a condition tailored to the particular circumstances of an individual case.”
Az Eufora v. Constantine Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Az Eufora v. Constantine Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(“Where the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, courts are not warranted in reading into the law words the legislature did not choose to include.”) (citation omitted).
Tdb Tucson Group, L.L.C. v. City of Tucson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Tdb Tucson Group, L.L.C. v. City of Tucson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
HBA OF CENT. ARIZONA v. City of Mesa 243 P.3d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
HBA OF CENT. ARIZONA v. City of Mesa 243 P.3d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Ariz. v. City of Scottsdale (Scottsdale III)
Home Builders Ass'n v. City of Goodyear 221 P.3d 384 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Home Builders Ass'n v. City of Goodyear 221 P.3d 384 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Ariz. v. City of Scottsdale (Home Builders III)
Robson Ranch Quail Creek, LLC v. Pima County 161 P.3d 588 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Robson Ranch Quail Creek, LLC v. Pima County 161 P.3d 588 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Ariz. v. City of Scottsdale, 187 Ariz. 479, 482, (municipality’s generally applicable land use regulations are legislative decisions and will be upheld unless “arbitrary and without a rational relation to a legitimate state interest”).
Northwest Fire District v. U.S. Home of Arizona Construction Co. 161 P.3d 535 Ariz. 2007
Distinguished Northwest Fire District v. U.S. Home of Arizona Construction Co. 161 P.3d 535 Ariz. 2007
III ¶24 Finally, P.2d 993 (1997), controls the outcome of this case.
Home Builders Association v. City of Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Home Builders Association v. City of Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
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
Aaa Cab Service Inc. v. Kerri S. Way, Special Fund division/no Insurance Section 141 P.3d 822 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Aaa Cab Service Inc. v. Kerri S. Way, Special Fund division/no Insurance Section 141 P.3d 822 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
(“Where the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, courts are not warranted in reading into the law words the legislature did not choose to include.”); (“[A] court will not inflate, expand, stretch or ext
United Dairymen of Arizona v. Schugg 128 P.3d 756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
United Dairymen of Arizona v. Schugg 128 P.3d 756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
-85 , -99 (1997) (finding that remand was unwarranted where plaintiff challenged a municipal development fee only on the basis that it failed to confer a benefit as required by statute, but raised no issue as to the reasonableness of that fee).
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
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
Grezaf-fi’s argument also overlooks the fact that the ordinance does not equate to “a city’s adjudicative decision to impose a condition tailored to the particular circumstances of an individual case.” Home Builders Ass’n
Home Builders Ass'n v. City of Apache Junction 11 P.3d 1032 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
Home Builders Ass'n v. City of Apache Junction 11 P.3d 1032 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
See Home Builders Ass’n of Central Arizona v. City of Scottsdale (City of Scottsdale II)
Paging Network of Arizona, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 970 P.2d 450 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Paging Network of Arizona, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 970 P.2d 450 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
See Home Builders Ass’n , , cert.
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 Murphy; -83 , -97 (1997) (“Courts must accord municipalities considerable deference and upset their legislative decisions only if they are shown to be arbitrary and without factual justification.”), cert.
Estate of Crain v. City of Williams 965 P.2d 76 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Estate of Crain v. City of Williams 965 P.2d 76 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
GST Tucson Lightwave, Inc. v. City of Tucson 949 P.2d 971 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
GST Tucson Lightwave, Inc. v. City of Tucson 949 P.2d 971 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
In addition, our supreme court has recently stated that Dolan applies to “a city’s adjudicative decision to impose a condition tailored to the particular circumstances of an individual case” but not to “a generally applicable legislative decision by the city.” Home Builders Ass’n , (emphasis in original).