Cave Creek Corrections

What happens when a town uses a puppet to create a rubber stamp solution?
It goes into Superior Court where real judges rule de novo. Check it out George.

Austin Shea (Arizona) 7th Street and Van Buren, L.L.C. v. City of Phoenix, 142 P.3d 693

414ZONING AND PLANNING

414X Judicial Review or Relief

414X(C) Scope of Review

414X(C)2 Additional Proofs and Trial De Novo

414k642 k. Trial de novo in general.

Ariz.App.Div.1,2006

On review of board of adjustment’s decision to rehear appeal from zoning administrator’s decision, the parties’ disagreement regarding the definition of manifest error, for purposes of municipal ordinance providing that an appeal may be reheard only when there has been a manifest error affecting the board’s action, presented a question of law that Court of Appeals would review de novo.Copr. (C) West 2008 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works

Pingitore v. Town of Cave Creek, 981 P.2d 129

Ariz.App.Div.1,1998

If there is credible evidence to support town board of adjustment’s decision, it must be affirmed; however, when the issues are ones of statutory interpretation, the board’s interpretation of the law is subject to de novo review.Copr. (C) West 2008 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works

Pingitore v. Town of Cave Creek, 981 P.2d 129

Ariz.App.Div.1,1998

This entry was posted in Cave Creek Confidential and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>