Legal Opinion
Pima County v. Hogan
Court of Appeals of Arizona
Decided November 30, 1999No. 2 CA-CV 99-0065PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
BRAMMER, Presiding Judge.
¶ 1 Pima County (the County) appeals the trial court’s order denying its request for sanctions against appellee Jerome Hogan under Rule 68, Ariz. R. Civ. P., 16 A.R.S., after a bench trial in this eminent domain action. The County contends that the trial court erred when it found that Rule 68 did not apply to eminent domain proceedings, relying instead on A.R.S. § 12-1128. We affirm.
*139Facts and Procedural Background
¶ 2 The County brought this eminent domain action against Hogan pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-1116 for road construction. Before trial, the County filed an…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- State v. BirminghamArizona Supreme Court · 1964
- City of Anchorage v. ScaveniusAlaska Supreme Court · 1975
- City of Los Angeles v. RicardsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
- Phoenix of Hartford, Inc. v. Harmony Restaurants, Inc.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1977
- Grand River Dam Authority v. JarvisCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1942
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Warner v. Southwest Desert Images, LLCCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2008
- In Re Property Located at 6757 S. Burcham Ave.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2003
- Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Miller Park, L.L.C.Arizona Supreme Court · 2008
- SALT RIVER PROJ. AGRIC. IMP. AND POWER DIST. v. Miller Park, LLCArizona Supreme Court · 2008
- Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Miller Park, L.L.C.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2007
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.