Legal Opinion
Orsett/Columbia Ltd. Partnership v. Superior Court
Court of Appeals of Arizona
Decided January 29, 2004No. 1 CA-SA 03-0171PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
HALL, Judge.
¶ 1 Does the power of eminent domain enable a county to condemn a mere leasehold interest1 in a privately-owned building? That is the question presented in this special action. Relying on In re Forsstrom, 44 Ariz. 472, 38 P.2d 878 (1934) (Forsstrom), the superior court interpreted Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) section 12-1113 (2003) to authorize Maricopa County’s (County) condemnation of a twenty-three month leasehold in private property for use by the Peoria Justice of the Peace Court. Because we conclude that § 12-1113 does not allow condemnation of a mere leasehold…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- United States v. General Motors Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1945
- State v. ThelbergArizona Supreme Court · 1960
- City of Phoenix v. DonofrioArizona Supreme Court · 1965
- In Re ForsstromArizona Supreme Court · 1934
- Moore v. BrowningCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2002
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- City of Phoenix v. HarnishCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2006
- Town of Kearny v. Discount City of Old Bridge, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 2011
- Catalina Foothills Unified School District No. 16 v. La Paloma Property Owners Ass'nCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2015
- Queen Creek Summit, LLC v. DavisCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2008
- Town of Kearny v. Discount City of Old Bridge, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 2011