Legal Opinion
State v. Bartos
Arizona Supreme Court
Decided February 10, 1967No. 1740PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
UDALL, Justice.
City of Scottsdale Ordinances 64 and 207 provide for a “sewer rental charge” to be paid to the city by owners of premises served by the city sewer system. The rental charges are pledged by the city to retire the bonds used to finance construction of the sewer system and to the current operating and maintenance expenses of said system. Section 29 of Ordinance 207 is a catch-all penalty provision:
“Any system, corporation, or firm violating the terms of this ordinance shall be fined not more than the sum of Three Hundred Dollars ($300.00) or by imprisonment for a period not to…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Southwest Engineering Co. v. ErnstArizona Supreme Court · 1955
- Hubbell v. HigginsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1910
- Hamilton's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
- State v. McFarlandWashington Supreme Court · 1910
- Opinion of the JusticesSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1944
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- City of Gainesville v. STATE, DOTDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2001
- Ponderosa One Ltd. Partnership v. Salt Lake City Suburban Sanitary DistrictUtah Supreme Court · 1987
- State v. LeemanArizona Supreme Court · 1978
- Giesel v. City of Broadview HeightsCuyahoga County Common Pleas Court · 1968
- Attorney General Opinion No., Kansas Attorney General Reports1993
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.