9 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1959–2026 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arizona courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Armory Park Neighborhood Ass'n v. Episcopal Community Servicesgreen2 sentences1998Id. at 5 , 712 P.2d at 918 . ¶ 21 Similarly, in Buckelew v. Town of Parker, 188 Ariz. 446 , 937 P.2d 368 (App.1996), a landowner brought suit against the town zoning board to cure a zoning violation on property adjacent to the plaintiffs. 1998Id. at 5 , 712 P.2d at 918 . ¶ 21 Similarly, in Buckelew v. Town of Parker, 188 Ariz. 446 , 937 P.2d 368 (App.1996), a landowner brought suit against the town zoning board to cure a zoning violation on property adjacent to the plaintiffs. | 1 | 2 |
Sobol v. Marshgreen1 sentence2026Sobol v. Marsh, 212 Ariz. 301, 303, ¶ 7 (App. 2006). | 1 | 1 |
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc.green1 sentence2020If a violation does not constitute a nuisance per se, courts may “balance the equities in deciding whether to enjoin a zoning violation.” Id. at 187, ¶ 55 . ¶25 The Ranas also contend that the injunction failed to meet the specific requirements of Rule 65(d)(1). | 1 | 1 |
Haynes v. City of Tucsongreen2 sentences2016The Board approved the motion. ¶ 22 Pawn argues the Board could not grant the variance unless special circumstances or hardships applying to the Property (1) “prevent reasonable use of the property in the absence of a variance,” (2) the “zoning ordinance precluded] the use of the property in question for any purpose for which it is reasonably adapted,” and (3) the “situation or condition of the property in question[] is extraordinary and exceptional and application of the zoning requirement would cause peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties or exceptional and undue hardship.” ¶ 23 To 2016The Board approved the motion. ¶ 22 Pawn argues the Board could not grant the variance unless special circumstances or hardships applying to the Property (1) “prevent reasonable use of the property in the absence of a variance,” (2) the “zoning ordinance precluded] the use of the property in question for any purpose for which it is reasonably adapted,” and (3) the “situation or condition of the property in question[] is extraordinary and exceptional and application of the zoning requirement would cause peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties or exceptional and undue hardship.” ¶ 23 To | 1 | 1 |
Bauer v. Waste Management of Connecticut, Inc.green1 sentence2008Billboards that violate City ordinances are declared public nuisances in Tucson Code § 3-7 and so, based on these cases, the superior court would have discretion in fashioning a remedy for a billboard that violates the sign code. ¶55 That result is in accord with the result reached by a majority of courts that have considered whether a trial court may balance the equities in deciding whether to enjoin 28 a zoning violation.6 Although some courts have reached the opposite conclusion,7 the 6 See, e.g., Bauer v. Waste Mgmt. of Conn., Inc., 686 A.2d 481, 489 (Conn. 1996) (“In an action brought by | 1 | 1 |
Scholten v. Blackhawk Partnersgreen2 sentences2008See Scholten, 184 Ariz. at 331 , 909 P.2d at 398 . 2008See Scholten, 184 Ariz. at 331 , 909 P.2d at 398 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Buckelew v. Town of Parker
green
2 sentences1998Id. at 5 , 712 P.2d at 918 . ¶ 21 Similarly, in Buckelew v. Town of Parker, 188 Ariz. 446 , 937 P.2d 368 (App.1996), a landowner brought suit against the town zoning board to cure a zoning violation on property adjacent to the plaintiffs. 1998Id. at 5 , 712 P.2d at 918 . ¶ 21 Similarly, in Buckelew v. Town of Parker, 188 Ariz. 446 , 937 P.2d 368 (App.1996), a landowner brought suit against the town zoning board to cure a zoning violation on property adjacent to the plaintiffs. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Sesnovich v. Board of Appeal
green
2 sentences1981While we view the application of waiver in a zoning hearing context as being in accord with general principles of law governing a waiver of individual rights in hearings before administrative bodies, we recognize that this is contrary to the view taken by the Massachusetts court in Sesnovich v. Board of Appeal, 313 Mass. 393 , 47 N.E.2d 943 (1943). 5 We believe, however, that the analysis presented in Sesnovich is unsound in that it does not adequately address an important issue: that is, the point at which the public’s interest has been adequately protected so that any jurisdictional basis fo 1981While we view the application of waiver in a zoning hearing context as being in accord with general principles of law governing a waiver of individual rights in hearings before administrative bodies, we recognize that this is contrary to the view taken by the Massachusetts court in Sesnovich v. Board of Appeal, 313 Mass. 393 , 47 N.E.2d 943 (1943). 5 We believe, however, that the analysis presented in Sesnovich is unsound in that it does not adequately address an important issue: that is, the point at which the public’s interest has been adequately protected so that any jurisdictional basis fo | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Holmes v. Graves
green
2 sentences1981Cf. Holmes v. Graves, 83 Ariz. 174 , 318 P.2d 354 (1957). 1981Cf. Holmes v. Graves, 83 Ariz. 174 , 318 P.2d 354 (1957). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Gendron v. Naugatuck
green
2 sentences1959In Gendron v. Borough of Naugatuck, 21 Conn.Sup. 78 , 144 A.2d 818, 823 , the court, dealing with a similar notice requirement for a zoning hearing, said : “ * * * An essential element of a publication or legal notice is that it appears on its face to be caused to be given or published by competent authority. 39 Am.Jur. 237, § 9. 1959In Gendron v. Borough of Naugatuck, 21 Conn.Sup. 78 , 144 A.2d 818, 823 , the court, dealing with a similar notice requirement for a zoning hearing, said : “ * * * An essential element of a publication or legal notice is that it appears on its face to be caused to be given or published by competent authority. 39 Am.Jur. 237, § 9. | 1 | 1959–1959 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.