Legal Opinion · Dissent

Home Builders Ass'n v. City of Scottsdale

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided July 6, 1994No. 1 CA-CV 92-0210Published

1DissentGrant, Presiding Judge

I respectfully dissent because I believe that the decision of the trial court should be affirmed.

I agree with the majority that deference should be afforded a municipality’s determination of the reasonable amount of a development fee. I disagree with the standard of review the majority applies to the trial court’s determination of a “beneficial use” to the new subdivisions. The trial court should, as was done in this case, independently review the proposed expenditure and determine if it will result in a “beneficial use” to the new developments as required by the enabling statute. To…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Mid Kansas Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of Wichita v. Dynamic Development Corp.Arizona Supreme Court · 1991
  2. Fluckey v. City of PlymouthMichigan Supreme Court · 1960
  3. Banberry Development Corp. v. South Jordan CityUtah Supreme Court · 1981
  4. City of Glendale v. WhiteArizona Supreme Court · 1948
  5. Hollywood, Inc. v. Broward CountyDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1983

11 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