Dawe v. City of Scottsdale
Arizona Supreme Court
119 Ariz. 486, 581 P.2d 1136 (1978)
- Written by Tanya Munson, JD
Facts
Kendall and Mildred Dawe (plaintiffs) owned the Palo Verde Terrace in Maricopa County (the county) in the city of Scottsdale (the city) (defendant). In 1960, the Dawes’ predecessors in interest of the Palo Verde Terrace recorded the Palo Verde Terrace subdivision plat at a time when the county did not have a zoning ordinance in effect. The plat provided for 120 lots of a maximum of 10,000 square feet each. In 1963, the city annexed an area that included the Palo Verde Terrace. The city’s zoning ordinance permitted a minimum lot size of 35,000 square feet per lot in the annexed area. From the time the Dawes’ plat was recorded in 1960, there were no attempts made to improve it, and the property remained vacant and unimproved until 1975. In 1975, the Dawes filed an action in the superior court to have the Palo Verde Terrace declared a legally existing subdivision, a declaration that the city’s annexation of the Palo Verde Terrace land did not affect the validity of the subdivision plan or the Dawes’ right to develop it, and to compel the city to issue certain construction permits. The superior court entered a judgment in favor of the city, declaring that the city’s zoning applied to the Palo Verde Terrace and denying the Dawes’ construction permits. The Dawes appealed, and the court of appeals reversed the judgment of the superior court. The supreme court accepted review.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Struckmeyer, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.