Legal Opinion

City of Tucson v. Fleischman

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided December 26, 1986No. 2 CA-SA 0452PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

HOWARD, Presiding Judge.

In this special action, we must determine whether A.R.S. §§ 12-820 to -826 apply to cities. We are also presented with issues regarding the interpretation and application of the excusable neglect and indemnification provisions contained in A.R.S. § 12-821(A). Because petitioner has no equally plain, speedy and adequate remedy by appeal, and the questions presented are pure issues of law of substantial public magnitude arising from relatively new statutes not previously interpreted, we assume jurisdiction. See Rule 1(a), Rules of Procedure for Special Actions,…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. United States v. Super. Ct. in & for Maricopa Cty.Arizona Supreme Court · 1985
  2. State v. BrooksCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1975
  3. Strode v. SullivanArizona Supreme Court · 1951
  4. City of Phoenix v. Collar, Williams & White Engineering, Inc.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1970

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Pritchard v. StateArizona Supreme Court · 1990
  2. Gotbaum Ex Rel. Gotbaum v. City of PhoenixDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2008
  3. Stulce v. SALT RIVER PROJECT AGRICULTURAL IMPROVEMENT AND POWER DISTRICTCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1999
  4. Johnson v. SUPERIOR COURT, PIMA COUNTYCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1988
  5. Hauskins v. McGillicuddyCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1992

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API