Washburn v. Pima County
Arizona Court of Appeals
81 P.3d 1030 (2003)
- Written by Tanya Munson, JD
Facts
In February 2002, Pima County (defendant) adopted the Inclusive Home Design Ordinance (the ordinance). The ordinance promulgated building requirements applicable to the construction of new, single-family homes in the county. The ordinance adopted provisions that required newly constructed homes to include design features to allow wheelchair users to more easily enter and use the house. Such features included sufficiently wide doorways, outlets reachable while seated in a wheelchair, and bathroom-wall reinforcement so that grab bars could be installed. These accessibility features were adopted from a publication by American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and published by the International Code Council (ICC). Steven and Jeanette Washburn applied for a permit to construct a single-family home in Pima County. The Washburns’ application was denied because the proposed design did not comply with the wheelchair-accessibility requirements of the county’s ordinance. The Washburns filed a declaratory judgment and special-action complaint. The Washburns asked the trial court to declare that the county lacked authority to adopt the ordinance and that the ordinance violated the Equal Protection and Privacy Clauses of the Arizona Constitution. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Pima County. The Washburns appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Eckerstrom, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.