Legal Opinion

City of Phoenix v. South Bank Corp.

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided April 13, 1982No. 1 CA-CIV 5093PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

B. MICHAEL DANN, Judge.

The City of Phoenix commenced this litigation to condemn 10.92 acres of land owned by the appellees Patón for a land-fill site. Just prior to the inception of the litigation the Patons had entered into a “material sales contract” with the appellant South Bank Corporation, by which South Bank obtained the right to purchase sand and gravel “in place” on the Patons’ land. The basic issue on appeal is whether South Bank had an interest in the land for which the city was required to pay compensation in the condemnation proceeding. We have concluded that the summary…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Omnia Commercial Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
  2. Peterson v. Valley National Bank of PhoenixArizona Supreme Court · 1962
  3. Livingston v. Citizen's Utility, Inc.Arizona Supreme Court · 1971
  4. Von Goerlitz v. TurnerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944
  5. Saxman v. ChristmannArizona Supreme Court · 1938

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. In re Proceedings for the Condemnation of a Fee Simple Interest in Land Owned by: LeeCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1987
  2. State Ex Rel. Miller v. Gannett Outdoor Co. of Arizona, Inc.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1990
  3. In Re LeeCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1987
  4. State Ex Rel. Miller v. Gannett Outdoor Co. of Arizona, Inc.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1990

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

Powered by the Exa API