Carefree Improvement Ass'n v. City of Scottsdale
Court of Appeals of Arizona
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
CORCORAN, Judge.
The appellees commenced this litigation to invalidate an annexation ordinance passed by the appellant City of Scottsdale (Scottsdale). Appellees moved for summary judgment on the ground that Scottsdale had failed to comply with the notice provisions of Arizona’s open meeting law, A.R.S. §§ 38-431.01 to .09. The trial court granted summary judgment. We affirm its decision.
Although the action taken by the city council of Scottsdale involves annexation, this is not a “strip annexation” case. This is an open meeting law case. The open meeting law was first adopted in 1962.…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Hart v. Bayless Investment & Trading CompanyArizona Supreme Court · 1959
- Wisener v. StateArizona Supreme Court · 1979
- Mead School District No. 354 v. Mead Education Ass'nWashington Supreme Court · 1975
- Crook v. AndersonCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1977
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- City of Prescott v. Town of Chino ValleyArizona Supreme Court · 1990
- City of Prescott v. Town of Chino ValleyCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1989
- U.S. Life Title Insurance Co. of New York v. Department of Commerce & Insurance of TennesseeCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1988
- Cooner v. Board of EducationCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1982
- Thurston v. City of PhoenixCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1988
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.