City of Tucson v. Pima County
Court of Appeals of Arizona
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
EHRLICH, Judge.
¶ 1 The ultimate issue presented by this case is whether it is constitutional for the Arizona state legislature to require the consent of a proximate municipality before an area may incorporate. We conclude that the statute requiring such permission as a predicate to municipal incorporation, Ariz.Rev. Stat. (“A.R.S.”) § 9~101.01(B)(1) (1996), is constitutional, and we therefore affirm the superior court’s judgment dismissing the appellants’ contrary contentions.
FACTS and PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶ 2 Since 1961, A.R.S. sections 9-101 (Supp.2000) and 9-101.01 have outlined the…
2Cases cited40 opinions
- San Antonio Independent School District v. RodriguezSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- McGowan v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
- Heller v. Doe Ex Rel. DoeSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Harris v. McRaeSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Kramer v. Union Free School District No. 15Supreme Court of the United States · 1969
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Green v. City of TucsonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
- Town of Gilbert v. Maricopa CountyCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2006
- Strawberry Water Co. v. PaulsenCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2008
- Melinda S. Workman v. Verde Wellness Center, Inc.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2016
- Sanderson Lincoln Mercury, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2003
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.