From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Burton v. Kautenburger

Supreme Court of Arizona
Nov 2, 1960
356 P.2d 412 (Ariz. 1960)

Summary

In Burton v. Kautenburger, 88 Ariz. 319, 356 P.2d 412, 413, and Burton v. City of Tucson, 88 Ariz. 320, 356 P.2d 413, 417, it was stated that the annexation by the City although foreclosing judicial review in these cases by the board's determinations did not deprive appellant of any constitutionally protected vested rights.

Summary of this case from Scarlett v. Town Council, Town of Jackson, Teton Co.

Opinion

Nos. 6984, 6985.

November 2, 1960.

Appeal from the Superior Court of Pima County, John F. Malloy, J.

Wolfe, Greer Kenz, Tucson, for appellants.

Harry Ackerman, County Atty., and Marvin S. Cohen, Chief Civil Deputy County Atty., Tucson, for appellees.


These consolidated appeals have been taken from orders entered in the trial court denying writs of certiorari to the appellee Board of Supervisors, and dismissing the appellants' substantially identical petitions for such writs. They are companion appeals to those considered this same day in Burton v. City of Tucson, 88 Ariz. 320, 356 P.2d 413, and their factual background is set out in that opinion. When the appellee Board of Supervisors denied appellants' petitions seeking incorporation elections, the City of Tucson acted immediately to annex by ordinance the areas in question. Appellants thereafter filed in the superior court their petitions for writs of certiorari to review the Board's actions. The writs were denied, the petitions dismissed.

The legal questions raised by these appeals are identical in substance, if not in form, to those presented by the companion cases and considered in Burton v. City of Tucson, supra. They will not be restated here. The trial court ruled that the actions before it were collateral attacks upon a completed annexation ordinance of the City of Tucson, and that appellants were therefore without status to maintain them. Burton v. City of Tucson, supra. We agree. Hunt v. Atkinson, Tex.Civ. App., 300 S.W. 656; Tex.Com.App., 12 S.W.2d 142. The annexation by the City, although foreclosing judicial review in these actions of the Board's determinations, did not deprive appellants of any constitutionally protected vested rights. Burton v. City of Tucson, supra.

The trial court correctly dismissed the petitions for writs of certiorari.

Judgments affirmed.

STRUCKMEYER, C.J., and PHELPS, BERNSTEIN and UDALL, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Burton v. Kautenburger

Supreme Court of Arizona
Nov 2, 1960
356 P.2d 412 (Ariz. 1960)

In Burton v. Kautenburger, 88 Ariz. 319, 356 P.2d 412, 413, and Burton v. City of Tucson, 88 Ariz. 320, 356 P.2d 413, 417, it was stated that the annexation by the City although foreclosing judicial review in these cases by the board's determinations did not deprive appellant of any constitutionally protected vested rights.

Summary of this case from Scarlett v. Town Council, Town of Jackson, Teton Co.
Case details for

Burton v. Kautenburger

Case Details

Full title:Marvin L. BURTON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated…

Court:Supreme Court of Arizona

Date published: Nov 2, 1960

Citations

356 P.2d 412 (Ariz. 1960)
356 P.2d 412

Citing Cases

Scarlett v. Town Council, Town of Jackson, Teton Co.

* * *" In Burton v. Kautenburger, 88 Ariz. 319, 356 P.2d 412, 413, and Burton v. City of Tucson, 88 Ariz.…