Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1112
Prerequisites to taking property by condemnation
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official)
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Except as provided by section 28-7102, before property may be taken, it shall appear that:
1. The use to which the property is to be applied is a use authorized by law.
2. The taking is necessary to such use.
3. If the property is already appropriated to some public use, the public use to which it is to be applied is a more necessary public use.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1957–2024 · leading case: City of Phoenix v. McCullough
City of Phoenix v. McCullough (1975)
“This section in part provides, "the municipality may acquire the property by condemnation in the manner provided by law whereby cities, towns and counties are authorized to acquire real property for public purposes.”
Catalina Foothills Unified School District No. 16 v. La Paloma Property Owners Ass'n (2015)
“[t]he use to which the property is to be applied is a use authorized by law [and] ... [t]he taking is necessary to such use.”
City of Tempe v. Fleming (1991)
“We are not completely convinced that Fleming failed to raise the issue in the trial court. In an eminent domain action, the prerequisites to taking private property are: 1.”
City of Mesa v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District (1962)
“A.R.S. § 12-1112, subsection 3. In City of Tucson v.”
Uhlmann v. Wren (1965)
“This is true because A.R.S. § 12-1112 provides as follows: "Before property may be taken, it shall appear that: "1.”
Tucson Community Development & Design Center, Inc. v. City of Tucson (1981)
“§ 36-1480(0) likewise provides for detailed public notice prior to the consideration of any redevelopment contract. The legislative requirement that these findings be made by the governmental body is analogous to the requirement that the condemning body make findings of…”
Desert Waters, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
“, a special law governing condemnation of utilities by municipal corporations, precludes the application of § 12-1116, a general eminent domain statute; (3) § 12-1116 cannot be used because the prerequisite findings required by § 12-1112 have not been made; (4) If immediate…”
City of Phoenix v. Donofrio (1965)
“One of the prerequisites to the taking of property by condemnation under A.R.S. § 12-1112 (1956), is that, “The use to which the property is to be applied is a use authorized by law.”
City of Mesa v. Smith Co. of Arizona, Inc. (1991)
“2, § 17 and A.R.S. § 12-1112. Moreover, “a municipality can only exercise the right of eminent domain when it is conferred upon it by the legislature expressly or by necessary implication.”
Flecha Caida Water Company v. City of Tucson (1966)
“The appellant has questioned the validity of the condemnation proceedings, claiming that the city did not comply with the general condemnation statute, particularly A.R.S. § 12-1112, which provides that property may not be taken by condemnation, unless it appears that: “1.”
Citizens Utilities Water Co. v. Superior Court (1972)
“Section 12-1112 provides that before property may be taken, it must appear that the taking is necessary and, if the property is already appropriated to some public use, that the public use to which it is to be applied is a “more necessary” public use.”
Chambers v. State Ex Rel. Morrison (1957)
“A.R.S. § 12-1112 sets out the prerequisites to the taking of property by condemnation.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1112(2) — 3 cases
Catalina Foothills Unified School District No. 16 v. La Paloma Property Owners Ass'n (2015)
“[t]he use to which the property is to be applied is a use authorized by law [and] ... [t]he taking is necessary to such use.”
Oursland v. Hon mackey/aps (2018)
Naddy v. Hon Adleman (2024)
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.