State v. Owens

5 Citing cases

  1. State v. Trachtman

    190 Ariz. 331 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 7 times

    " Id. (citing State v. Johnson, 112 Ariz. 383, 385, 542 P.2d 808, 810 (1975)). Trachtman relies heavily on State v. Owens, 114 Ariz. 565, 562 P.2d 738 (App. 1977). In that case, the defendant, who was accused of storing automobiles and junk in his yard, was prosecuted for violating a city ordinance that allowed accessory uses "clearly incidental to the use of the main building, other structure or use of land, and . . . [w]hich [are] customary in connection with the main building, other structure, or use of land."

  2. City Bor. of Juneau v. Thibodeau

    595 P.2d 626 (Alaska 1979)   Cited 89 times
    Holding that we may treat improperly brought appeal as petition for review

    We see no reason for adopting the minority rule that zoning ordinances are in derogation of the common law and therefore must be construed narrowly in favor of the right of the property owner to unrestricted use of his property. See, e.g., State v. Owens, 114 Ariz. 565, 562 P.2d 738 (App. 1977); Kiefer v. Luhnow, 491 P.2d 100 (Colo.App. 1977); County of Clatsop v. Rock Island Constr., Inc., 5 Or. App. 15, 482 P.2d 541 (1971). As this court has previously stated: "[I]f a statute is unambiguous and expresses the intention of the legislature, it should not be modified or extended by judicial construction."

  3. Hengehold v. City of Florence

    596 S.W.3d 599 (Ky. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 1 times

    SeeCurd v. Kentucky State Bd. of Licensure for Prof'l Engineers & Land Surveyors , 433 S.W.3d 291, 305 (Ky. 2014). Cited in Wiley v. Hanover Cty. , 209 Va. 153, 155, 163 S.E.2d 160, 162 (1968), and State v. Owens , 114 Ariz. 565, 566, 562 P.2d 738, 739 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977). V. Scope of Principally Permissible Uses

  4. State v. Holland

    153 Ariz. 536 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 6 times
    In State v. Holland, 153 Ariz. 536, 738 P.2d 1143 (App. 1987), a criminal misdemeanor case tried in city court and appealed to superior court, this court noted that an attack on the trial court's interpretation or application of a statute is beyond the scope of this court's review.

    State v. Spitz, 15 Ariz. App. 120, 486 P.2d 800 (1971). Beyond the scope of our review are such matters as the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction, State v. Jacobson, 121 Ariz. 65, 588 P.2d 358 (App. 1978); an attack on the lower court's interpretation or application of a statute, State v. Renteria, 126 Ariz. 591, 617 P.2d 543 (App. 1979); State v. Owens, 114 Ariz. 565, 562 P.2d 738 (App. 1977); a challenge to the superior court's dismissal of an appeal from city court, State v. McNeill, 146 Ariz. 568, 707 P.2d 972 (App. 1985); a challenge to the propriety of a search warrant issued by a justice of the peace, State v. Fagerberg, 17 Ariz. App. 63, 495 P.2d 503 (1972); and issues concerning evidentiary or factual disputes, Sanders v. Moore, 117 Ariz. 527, 573 P.2d 927 (App. 1977). In summary, a criminal misdemeanor case that is tried in city court may be appealed to the superior court. Ariz. Const. art. VI, § 16; A.R.S. § 22-371 to 374.

  5. State v. Jacobson

    121 Ariz. 65 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978)   Cited 10 times

    Beyond the scope of our review are questions relating to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain appellant's conviction. See State v. Owens, 114 Ariz. 565, 562 P.2d 738 (Ct.App. 1977). Consequently, we will not consider appellant's fourth question.