Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Evans v. Blankenship, 39 P. 812.

28 citing documents.

Tms v. Zachariah Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Tms v. Zachariah Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
See City of Chandler, 224 Ariz. at 403, ¶ 11 (finding acceptance where “the County properly accepted the roadway dedications for the public benefit”); (city council’s direction to street and alley committee to “clear up the plaza” constituted “a sufficient and timely acceptance” of the plaza).
Gardner v. Richardson 283 P.3d 676 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Gardner v. Richardson 283 P.3d 676 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
See, , 39 P. 812, 813 (1895) (“ ‘Acceptance may be presumed if the gift is beneficial, and use[ ] is evidence that it is beneficial.’ ”) (quoting Abbott v. Cottage City, 143 Mass. 521 , 10 N.E.
Kadlec v. Dorsey 233 P.3d 1130 Ariz. 2010
Kadlec v. Dorsey 233 P.3d 1130 Ariz. 2010
-14, -36 (1956) (emphasizing the proprietor’s dedicatory statement, which was signed, filed and recorded, and subsequent references to such statement in transactions involving the sale of the land at 5 issue); -15, 39 P. 812, 813 (Terr.
Kadlec v. Dorsey 223 P.3d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Kadlec v. Dorsey 223 P.3d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
¶ 15; , , 535 (1956); , 39 P. 812, 813 (Ariz.Terr.
Lowe v. Pima County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Lowe v. Pima County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
See id.; see also Leidendeker, 81 Ariz. at 213, 303 P.2d at 535; 39 P. 812, 813 (Ariz. Terr.
Pleak v. ENTRADA PROPERTY OWNERS'ASS'N 87 P.3d 831 Ariz. 2004
Pleak v. ENTRADA PROPERTY OWNERS'ASS'N 87 P.3d 831 Ariz. 2004
P. 812 (1895) (upholding common law dedication of a public park).
Pleak v. Entrada Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Pleak v. Entrada Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
¶17 The supreme court addressed a P. 812 (1895).
City of Scottsdale v. Mocho 444 P.2d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
City of Scottsdale v. Mocho 444 P.2d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
39 P. 812 , the question under consideration was whether a lot of land had been dedicated as a public square.
City of Flagstaff v. Babbitt 443 P.2d 938 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
City of Flagstaff v. Babbitt 443 P.2d 938 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
39 P. 812 (1895) the issue was presented as to whether land appearing upon a map of Neahr’s Addition to the City of Phoenix as a park had been property dedicated as a public park.
County of Yuma v. Leidendeker 303 P.2d 531 Ariz. 1956
County of Yuma v. Leidendeker 303 P.2d 531 Ariz. 1956
It is our view that as far as dedications are concerned, paragraph 4098 et seq., , 39 P. 812 .
City of Phoenix v. Landrum & Mills Realty Co. 227 P.2d 1011 Ariz. 1951
City of Phoenix v. Landrum & Mills Realty Co. 227 P.2d 1011 Ariz. 1951
The case of Evans v. Blankenship, 1895, , 39 P. 812 , which also recognizes the general doctrine of dedication by plat.
Edwards v. Sheets 185 P.2d 1001 Ariz. 1947
Edwards v. Sheets 185 P.2d 1001 Ariz. 1947
Evans v. Blankenship, supra [ , 39 P. 812 ], The use by the purchasers of lots and the general public constituted a sufficient acceptance.
Allied American Inv. Co. v. Pettit 179 P.2d 437 Ariz. 1947
Allied American Inv. Co. v. Pettit 179 P.2d 437 Ariz. 1947
39 P. 812 , the question under consideration was whether, a lot of land had been dedicated as a public square.
Butler v. Quinn 14 P.2d 250 Ariz. 1932
Butler v. Quinn 14 P.2d 250 Ariz. 1932