City of Phoenix v. Oglesby

Decision Date16 July 1975
Docket NumberNo. 11995,11995
Citation537 P.2d 934,112 Ariz. 64
PartiesThe CITY OF PHOENIX, a Municipal Corporation, Appellant, v. George W. OGLESBY and Yolanda Oglesby, husband and wife, Appellees.
CourtArizona Supreme Court

Joe R. Purcell, City Atty. by Robert A. Slonaker, Asst. City Atty., Phoenix, for appellant.

George W. Oglesby, Phoenix, for appellees.

HAYS, Justice.

George W. Oglesby and his wife, the appellees, applied to the Planning Commission of the City of Phoenix, the appellant, to change the zoning of land owned by the appellees from a single-family use classification (RI--6) to a commercial office classification (C-O). The Commission voted to deny the application. Subsequently, the city council heard and denied the application. Oglesby filed a complaint in Superior Court seeking an injunction to restrain the city from interfering with the use of the property as a commercial office. A permanent injunction was granted. The city now appeals. This court has jurisdiction of the case pursuant to Rule 47(e)(5), Rules of the Supreme Court, 17A A.R.S.

Zoning laws serve the public welfare by providing for the orderly development of the community. Klensin v. City of Tucson, 10 Ariz.App. 399, 459 P.2d 316 (1969); Rubi v. 49'er Country Club Estates, Inc.,7 Ariz.App. 408, 440 P.2d 44 (1968). See 8 McQuillen, The Law of Municipal Corporations, § 25.17. The matter of zoning is appropriately one for the legislative branch of government. City of Phoenix v. Fehlner, 90 Ariz. 13, 363 P.2d 607 (1961). There is a presumption that zoning ordinances are valid. City of Phoenix v. Fehlner, Supra. An ordinance will not be found unconstitutional unless it affirmatively appears that 'the restriction is clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, and has not any substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.' City of Tucson v. Arizona Mortuary, 34 Ariz. 495, 507, 272 P. 923, 927 (1928); Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 47 S.Ct. 114, 71 L.Ed. 303 (1926). A mere loss of value is not a sufficient basis upon which to invalidate a zoning ordinance. City of Phoenix v. Fehlner, Supra. To establish that the statute is confiscatory in effect, it must be shown that the zoning restrictions prevent the use of the property for any purpose to which it reasonably might be adapted. City of Phoenix v. Fehlner, Supra; Rubi v. 49'er Country Club Estates, Inc., Supra.

If the record on appeal shows that the question is debatable, the conclusions of the trial court are not binding upon the appellate court. Rubi v. 49'er Country Club Estates, Inc., Supra. 'If the validity of the legislative classification for zoning purposes be fairly debatable, the legislative judgment must be allowed to control. Radice v. New York, 264 U.S. 292, 294, 44 S.Ct. 325, 68 L.Ed. 690 (1924).' Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co., Supra, 272 U.S. at 388, 47 S.Ct. at 118. A court is not appropriate forum to decide zoning issues if the zoning meets constitutional standards. Not being the appropriate body to substitute its ideas for that of the legislature, this is an area in which the validity of the enactment will be presumed, City of Phoenix v. Fehlner, Supra, and the test set forth in City of Phoenix v....

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Bartolomeo v. Town of Paradise Valley
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • May 26, 1981
    ...the legislature intended to leave these legislative questions for the Town to decide under its police powers. City of Phoenix v. Oglesby, 112 Ariz. 64, 65, 537 P.2d 934, 935 (1975). M. R. Schroeder, Public Regulation of Private Land Use in Arizona: An Analysis of its Scope and Potential, Pa......
  • City of Tucson v. Grezaffi
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • May 15, 2001
    ...of an ordinance has the burden of overcoming a strong presumption that it is constitutional. Id. See also City of Phoenix v. Oglesby, 112 Ariz. 64, 65, 537 P.2d 934, 935 (1975). When a reasonable, even though debatable, basis supports an ordinance, we will uphold the ordinance unless it is ......
  • Corrigan v. City of Scottsdale, 1
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • February 28, 1985
    ...of the judgment is not the applicable rule in zoning cases. However zoning ordinances are presumed to be valid. City of Phoenix v. Oglesby, 112 Ariz. 64, 537 P.2d 934 (1975); Peabody v. City of Phoenix, 14 Ariz.App. 576, 485 P.2d 565 (1971). This court does not sit as a super-zoning commiss......
  • Ranch 57 v. City of Yuma, s. 1
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • September 2, 1986
    ...N.Y. 222, 226, 15 N.E.2d 587, 589 (1938)). The Arizona Supreme Court later reaffirmed the rule in Fehlner in City of Phoenix v. Oglesby, 112 Ariz. 64, 66, 537 P.2d 934, 936 (1975). The Arizona standard could be construed as inconsistent with the federal standard of economic viability becaus......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT