Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite The City of Phoenix v. Johnson, 75 P.2d 30.

39 citing documents.

Allison Bradford; Michael Carlson and Adrian Wurr v. City of Tucson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
Allison Bradford; Michael Carlson and Adrian Wurr v. City of Tucson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
-31 (1938) (holding the City of Phoenix liable for a public nuisance for a sewer system built and operated by the city emitting foul odors).
Brown v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Brown v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Co., (noting a common law “public nuisance is one affecting the rights enjoyed by citizens as a part of the public;” it must “affect a considerable number of people”) ().
Las Ventanas v. Adeq Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Las Ventanas v. Adeq Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
at 425 ¶¶ 17-18 ( Garcia, 58 Ariz. at 533; and 6 ).
Maricopa v. Rovey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Maricopa v. Rovey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Hopi Tribe v. Ariz. Snowbowl Resort Ltd. P'ship 430 P.3d 362 Ariz. 2018
Hopi Tribe v. Ariz. Snowbowl Resort Ltd. P'ship 430 P.3d 362 Ariz. 2018
¶9 Unlike private nuisances, which “‘affect[] a single individual or a definite number of persons in the enjoyment of some private right,’” public nuisances are characteristically broad in scope and “encompass[] any unreasonable interference with a right common to the general public.” Armory Park, 148 Ariz. at 4 (); accord Restatement (Second) of Torts (“Restatement”) § 821B (Am.
Brenteson Wholesale, Inc. v. Arizona Public Service Co. 803 P.2d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Brenteson Wholesale, Inc. v. Arizona Public Service Co. 803 P.2d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Graber v. City of Peoria 753 P.2d 1209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Graber v. City of Peoria 753 P.2d 1209 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Armory Park Neighborhood Ass'n v. Episcopal Community Services 712 P.2d 914 Ariz. 1985
Armory Park Neighborhood Ass'n v. Episcopal Community Services 712 P.2d 914 Ariz. 1985
we noted that a nuisance is public when it affects rights of “citizens as a part of the public, while a private nuisance is one which affects a single individual or a definite number of persons in the enjoyment of some private right which is not common to the public.” Id.
McCuistion v. City of Huachuca City 594 P.2d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
McCuistion v. City of Huachuca City 594 P.2d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
State ex rel. Herman v. Cardon 530 P.2d 1115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
State ex rel. Herman v. Cardon 530 P.2d 1115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
unreasonable, unwarranted, or unlawful use by a person of his own property, working an obstruction or injury to the right of another, or to the public, and producing such material annoyance, inconvenience, and discomfort that the law will presume a resulting damage.”
Spur Feeding Co. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF MARICOPA CTY. 505 P.2d 1377 Ariz. 1973
Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co. 494 P.2d 700 Ariz. 1972
Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co. 494 P.2d 700 Ariz. 1972
Arizona Public Service Company v. Brittain 486 P.2d 176 Ariz. 1971
Arizona Public Service Company v. Brittain 486 P.2d 176 Ariz. 1971
City of Tucson v. LaForge, 8 Ariz.App.
Cactus Corporation v. State Ex Rel. Murphy 480 P.2d 375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Cactus Corporation v. State Ex Rel. Murphy 480 P.2d 375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
City of Phoenix v. Whiting 457 P.2d 729 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
City of Phoenix v. Whiting 457 P.2d 729 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
yed and dangerous and likely to fall, then you may find that the defendant City of Phoenix was guilty of maintaining a nuisance and you should not debate that question further, but should then consider the issue whether *196 that nuisance was a proximate cause of the injury.”
Rodgers v. Ray 457 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Rodgers v. Ray 457 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
and Prosser, Torts § 87, pp. 592, 594.
City of Scottsdale v. Municipal Court of Tempe 368 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1962
City of Scottsdale v. Municipal Court of Tempe 368 P.2d 637 Ariz. 1962
City of Tucson v. Apache Motors 245 P.2d 255 Ariz. 1952
City of Tucson v. Apache Motors 245 P.2d 255 Ariz. 1952
that: “ * * * if a nuisance is of such a nature that although the thing itself may continue, yet its injury to another may be abated by human agency, and the owner or perpetrator of the nuisance fails to abate it, the nuisance is a continuing one, and one action does not exhaust the remedies of the
Taylor v. Roosevelt Irr. Dist. 232 P.2d 107 Ariz. 1951
Taylor v. Roosevelt Irr. Dist. 232 P.2d 107 Ariz. 1951
The same rule is applicable to municipal corporations for their negligence in the construction or repair of sewers, , ; defects in the construction of culverts for drainage, , ; maintaining a sewer system so as to constitute a nuisance, City of Phoenix v. Johnson, supra.
Pinkerton v. Pritchard 223 P.2d 933 Ariz. 1950
Pinkerton v. Pritchard 223 P.2d 933 Ariz. 1950
in discussing a similar question, the court said: “Whether a party injured has only one or several rights of action for the maintenance of a nuisance, whether public or private, depends upon whether the nuisance is a permanent, or what is called a continuing, one.