Mobile Community Council for Progress, Inc. v. Brock
Court of Appeals of Arizona
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
IRVINE, Judge.
¶ 1 This is an appeal from the trial court’s order granting Appellees’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. For the following reasons, we hold that the two-thirds majority vote requirement of Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 11-824(C)(Supp.2004)1 is satisfied by a three-to-one vote when one member of the board of supervisors is disqualified from voting. Therefore, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 On December 4, 2002, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (the “Board”) voted on a “Major Plan Amendment to the County Area Plan” that redesignated…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Giles v. Hill Lewis MarceCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1999
- City of Alamo Heights v. GeretyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1954
- State v. McDermottCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2004
- Colonial Life & Accident Insurance v. StateCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1995
- Kaku v. Arizona Board of RegentsCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1992
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Save Our Valley Ass'n v. Arizona Corp. CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2007
- EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION v. FordCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2012
- Bank of Ny v. St. JohnCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2015