Legal Opinion

City of Tucson v. Pima County

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided March 15, 2001No. 1 CA-CV 00-0411PublishedCited by 10 opinions

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

  1. San Antonio Independent School District v. RodriguezSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  2. McGowan v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
  3. Heller v. Doe Ex Rel. DoeSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  4. Harris v. McRaeSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  5. 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

  1. Green v. City of TucsonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
  2. Town of Gilbert v. Maricopa CountyCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2006
  3. Strawberry Water Co. v. PaulsenCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2008
  4. Melinda S. Workman v. Verde Wellness Center, Inc.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2016
  5. Sanderson Lincoln Mercury, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2003

5 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