Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite City of Globe v. Willis, 146 P. 544.

27 citing documents.

Fernandez v. Houseopoly Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Fernandez v. Houseopoly Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Because the nature of the improvement was not of general benefit to the citizens of the city, but only provided a benefit to those who would be utilizing the improved system, it was deemed a “local improvement.” FERNANDEZ v. HOUSEOPOLY, et al. Decision of the Court 391 (1915).
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
-92 , 146 P. 544, 548-49 (1915); A.R.S.
Wennerstrom v. City of Mesa 821 P.2d 146 Ariz. 1991
Wennerstrom v. City of Mesa 821 P.2d 146 Ariz. 1991
1, § 1(8), see, , 146 P. 544 (1915), we have not extensively focused on the distinction between legislative and administrative acts.
Moore v. City of Chandler 713 P.2d 325 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Moore v. City of Chandler 713 P.2d 325 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
City of Tucson v. Corbin 623 P.2d 1239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
City of Tucson v. Corbin 623 P.2d 1239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
White v. Kaibab Road Improvement District 537 P.2d 986 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
White v. Kaibab Road Improvement District 537 P.2d 986 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Home Builders Ass'n of Central Arizona, Inc. v. Riddel 510 P.2d 376 Ariz. 1973
Home Builders Ass'n of Central Arizona, Inc. v. Riddel 510 P.2d 376 Ariz. 1973
“ ‘A “local improvement” has been defined to be a public improvement which, by reason of its being confined to a locality, enhances the value of adjacent property, as distinguished from benefits diffused by it throughout the municipality.’ ” , 146 P. 544, 549 (1915).
Tucson Transit Authority, Inc. v. Nelson 485 P.2d 816 Ariz. 1971
Tucson Transit Authority, Inc. v. Nelson 485 P.2d 816 Ariz. 1971
Arizona State Highway Commission v. Nelson 459 P.2d 509 Ariz. 1969
Arizona State Highway Commission v. Nelson 459 P.2d 509 Ariz. 1969
Our court has long adhered to this doctrine, , 146 P. 544 (1915).
Cyr & Evans Contracting Co. v. Graham 407 P.2d 385 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Cyr & Evans Contracting Co. v. Graham 407 P.2d 385 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
146 P. 544 (1915), it was held that section 13 Art. 7 has no application to bonds issued under the subject Act.
Mosher v. City of Phoenix 7 P.2d 622 Ariz. 1932
Mosher v. City of Phoenix 7 P.2d 622 Ariz. 1932
City of St. Paul v. Sanborn 222 N.W. 522 Minn. 1928
Kinne v. Burgess 211 P. 573 Ariz. 1922
Kinne v. Burgess 211 P. 573 Ariz. 1922
Ainsworth v. Arizona Asphalt Paving Co. 158 P. 428 Ariz. 1916
Ainsworth v. Arizona Asphalt Paving Co. 158 P. 428 Ariz. 1916
The first question, the question of the power of the legislature to authorize the city to specially assess property within a local district benefited by the street improvement, without submitting the question of such special assessment to a vote of the property taxpayers within the local improvement district, , 146 Pac.