(Caution: 1998 Prop. 105 applies)
A. In all eminent domain actions the judiciary shall comply with the state constitution's mandate that whenever an attempt is made to take private property for a use alleged to be public, the question whether the contemplated use be really public shall be a judicial question, and determined as such without regard to any legislative assertion that the use is public.
B. In any eminent domain action for the purpose of slum clearance and redevelopment, this state or a political subdivision of this state shall establish by clear and convincing evidence that each parcel is necessary to eliminate a direct threat to public health or safety caused by the property in its current condition, including the removal of structures that are beyond repair or unfit for human habitation or use, or to acquire abandoned property and that no reasonable alternative to condemnation exists.
Notes of Decisions
Sedona Grand, LLC v. City of Sedona, 270 P.3d 864 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “” A.R.S. § 12-1132(A) (emphasis added). We recognize that this is not an eminent domain case, and therefore do not hold that the legislative declaration of purpose is entirely irrelevant here.”
State v. foothills/hanke (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 2× “2, § 17; A.R.S. § 12-1132(A). The issue of necessity, by contrast, is deferential, giving “great weight” to assertions of necessity.”
State v. foothills/hanke (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 2× “2, § 17; A.R.S. § 12-1132(A). The issue of necessity, by contrast, is deferential, giving “great weight” to assertions of necessity.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1132(A) — 3 cases
Sedona Grand, LLC v. City of Sedona, 270 P.3d 864 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
“” A.R.S. § 12-1132(A) (emphasis added). We recognize that this is not an eminent domain case, and therefore do not hold that the legislative declaration of purpose is entirely irrelevant here.”
State v. foothills/hanke (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
“2, § 17; A.R.S. § 12-1132(A). The issue of necessity, by contrast, is deferential, giving “great weight” to assertions of necessity.”
State v. foothills/hanke (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
“2, § 17; A.R.S. § 12-1132(A). The issue of necessity, by contrast, is deferential, giving “great weight” to assertions of necessity.”
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.