Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Territory v. Richardson, 76 P. 456.

28 citing documents.

Triple G v. Mohave Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Triple G v. Mohave Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Further, Pleak explained that “public roads” in the context of the statute at issue in that case referred only to the roads identified as “public highways”
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
Its first clause merely denominates certain roads as “public highways.” As this court recognized in 1904, the phrase “public highways” in paragraph 3956 was meant simply to describe those roads “as come within the express provisions of the statutes declaring them to be such.” 76 P. 456, 457 (1904); (noting that “public highways” are those established by various statutory means).
Pleak v. Entrada Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Pleak v. Entrada Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Although, as Entrada points out, the court stated that the only method of establishing public roads was statutory, that statement does not preclude a finding of common law dedication of a public roadway, not only because the issue was not before the court, P. 456 (1904).
Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 12 P.3d 1208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 12 P.3d 1208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
No. 2 of Pinal County, , , , 233 P. 1107, 1108 (1925); -40 , 76 P. 456, 457 (1904).
State v. Dawson 858 P.2d 1213 Ariz. 1993
State v. Dawson 858 P.2d 1213 Ariz. 1993
-29 , 100 P. 777, 778 (1909); , 76 P. 456, 457 (1904).
State Ex Rel. Herman v. Cardon 544 P.2d 657 Ariz. 1976
State Ex Rel. Herman v. Cardon 544 P.2d 657 Ariz. 1976
-40 , 76 P. 456 (1904); , 100 P. 777 (1909); , 233 P. 1107 (1925); , , Old Pueblo Transit Company v. Arizona Co
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
-229 , 100 P. 777, 778-779 (1909), our Supreme Court said : “ , 76 P. 456 , we held that, under the provisions of our statutes on the subject of roads and highways, public highways are such only as come within the express provisions of the statute declaring them to be such, and that roads established without authority of law, for the convenience of individuals, are without any l
Old Pueblo Transit Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 329 P.2d 1108 Ariz. 1958
Old Pueblo Transit Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 329 P.2d 1108 Ariz. 1958
76 P. 456 , this court held, in essence, that public highways are such only as come within the express provisions of the statute declaring them to be such, while private ways are such as are laid out by authority of law, and roads established without authority for the convenience of individuals are without a legal s
Campbell v. Willard 42 P.2d 403 Ariz. 1935
Campbell v. Willard 42 P.2d 403 Ariz. 1935
Curtis v. Southern Pacific Co. 8 P.2d 1078 Ariz. 1932
Curtis v. Southern Pacific Co. 8 P.2d 1078 Ariz. 1932
Territory *574 v. Richardson, , 76 Pac.
County of Apache v. Udall 1 P.2d 340 Ariz. 1931
Board of Supervisors v. Udall 1 P.2d 343 Ariz. 1931
County of Apache v. Udall 1 P.2d 340 Ariz. 1931
Board of Supervisors v. Udall 1 P.2d 343 Ariz. 1931
Champie v. Castle Hot Springs Co. 233 P. 1107 Ariz. 1925
Champie v. Castle Hot Springs Co. 233 P. 1107 Ariz. 1925
*467 This court has heretofore defined the term “public roads” , 76 Pac.
Tucson Consolidated Copper Co. v. Reese 100 P. 777 Ariz. 1909
Tucson Consolidated Copper Co. v. Reese 100 P. 777 Ariz. 1909