Mosher v. City of Phoenix
Arizona Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
DARNELL, Superior Judge.
After thorough re* view of both the facts and the law involved in this appeal, we feel bound to recede from the position taken in our opinion of July 29, 1922, concerning the right of objectors who have signed a protest against proposed municipal improvements under the law of 1913 as amended to withdraw from the protest and be counted as favoring such improvement. Under a liberal construction of this law, such construction being made mandatory by paragraph 1976 of 1913 Civil Code of Arizona, being section 24 of the Improvement Law, objectors who have signed a paper of…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited11 opinions
- City of Sedalia ex rel. Gilsonite Construction Co. v. MontgomerySupreme Court of Missouri · 1910
- State ex rel. Lang v. FurnishMontana Supreme Court · 1913
- City of Sedalia ex rel. Gilsonite Construction Co. v. MontgomeryMissouri Court of Appeals · 1904
- City Street Improvement Co. v. BabcockCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- State ex rel. Fadness v. EieMontana Supreme Court · 1916
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- State Ex Rel. De Concini v. City of PhoenixArizona Supreme Court · 1952
- Valley Center School District No. 20 v. HansbergerArizona Supreme Court · 1925
- Mosher v. City of PhoenixArizona Supreme Court · 1928
- Strauss v. Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
- Ambrister v. City of NormanSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1959
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.