Legal Opinion

City of Phoenix v. Harnish

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided December 28, 2006No. 1 CA-CV 05-0023PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

GEMMILL, Judge.

¶ 1 Sherry A. Hamish appeals the trial court’s order granting the City of Phoenix’s application for immediate possession of her real property. Harnish argues that the trial court improperly interpreted Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 9-511 (1996) to allow the City to exercise its power of eminent domain beyond its territorial limits by taking her property for use as a nature preserve. Because we conclude that the State has not delegated to the City the power to condemn property outside its boundaries for this particular purpose, we reverse and remand for…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Bilke v. StateArizona Supreme Court · 2003
  2. Trustmark Insurance v. Bank One, Arizona, NACourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2002
  3. City of Phoenix v. DonofrioArizona Supreme Court · 1965
  4. Florez v. SargeantArizona Supreme Court · 1996
  5. City of Scottsdale v. Municipal Court of TempeArizona Supreme Court · 1962

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. NEW SUN BUSINESS PARK, LLC v. Yuma CountyCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2009
  2. Town of Marana v. Pima CountyCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2012
  3. Prince & Princess Enterprises, LLC v. State Ex Rel. Arizona Department of Health ServicesCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2009
  4. Buencamino v. NoftsingerCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2009
  5. Grubaugh v. Hon blomo/lawrenceCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2015

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API