Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1113
Estates in land subject to condemnation
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official)
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
The interests, estates and rights in lands subject to be taken for public use, are:
1. A fee simple, when taken for public buildings or grounds or for permanent buildings, for use in connection with a right-of-way or for an outlet for the flow or a place for the deposit of tailings or refuse from a mine or for irrigating ditches. A leasehold interest in a building may be taken only if the underlying property is taken in fee title or easement.
2. An easement when taken for any use other than those set forth in paragraph 1.
3. A right of entry on and occupation of lands, and the right to take from the lands earth, gravel, stone, trees and timber necessary for a public use.
4. A use in the water of a stream, river or spring.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1992–2025 · leading case: Orsett/Columbia Ltd. Partnership v. Superior Court
Orsett/Columbia Ltd. Partnership v. Superior Court (2004)
“Because we conclude that § 12-1113 does not allow condemnation of a mere leasehold interest in a building, we vacate the superior court’s order granting the County immediate possession of the premises.”
Catalina Foothills Unified School District No. 16 v. La Paloma Property Owners Ass'n (2015)
“Condemnation of Campo Abierto. ¶ 8 La Paloma first argues the superior court erred by ruling the District had the power to condemn Campo Abierto under A.”
Town of Paradise Valley v. Laughlin (1992)
“”) section 12-1113 provides as follows: The interests, estates and rights in lands subject to be taken for public use, are: 1.”
State v. foothills/hanke (2025)
“See A.R.S. §§ 12-1113(1), -1114(6). In 2018, the State and the HOA stipulated to a judgment condemning the Common Areas and compensating the HOA $6.”
State v. foothills/hanke (2025)
“See A.R.S. §§ 12-1113(1), -1114(6). In 2018, the State and the HOA stipulated to a judgment condemning the Common Areas and compensating the HOA $6.”
State v. foothills/hanke (2023)
“” A.R.S. § 12-1113(2); see also Federoff v.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1113(1) — 4 cases
Orsett/Columbia Ltd. Partnership v. Superior Court (2004)
“Because we conclude that § 12-1113 does not allow condemnation of a mere leasehold interest in a building, we vacate the superior court’s order granting the County immediate possession of the premises.”
Catalina Foothills Unified School District No. 16 v. La Paloma Property Owners Ass'n (2015)
“Condemnation of Campo Abierto. ¶ 8 La Paloma first argues the superior court erred by ruling the District had the power to condemn Campo Abierto under A.”
State v. foothills/hanke (2025)
“See A.R.S. §§ 12-1113(1), -1114(6). In 2018, the State and the HOA stipulated to a judgment condemning the Common Areas and compensating the HOA $6.”
State v. foothills/hanke (2025)
“See A.R.S. §§ 12-1113(1), -1114(6). In 2018, the State and the HOA stipulated to a judgment condemning the Common Areas and compensating the HOA $6.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1113(2) — 2 cases
Orsett/Columbia Ltd. Partnership v. Superior Court (2004)
“Because we conclude that § 12-1113 does not allow condemnation of a mere leasehold interest in a building, we vacate the superior court’s order granting the County immediate possession of the premises.”
State v. foothills/hanke (2023)
“” A.R.S. § 12-1113(2); see also Federoff v.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1113(3) — 1 case
Orsett/Columbia Ltd. Partnership v. Superior Court (2004)
“Because we conclude that § 12-1113 does not allow condemnation of a mere leasehold interest in a building, we vacate the superior court’s order granting the County immediate possession of the premises.”
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.