Cornman Tweedy 560, LLC v. City of Casa Grande ( 2006 )

BRAMMER, Judge,

specially concurring.

¶ 34 I concur in the result, and in parts B and C of the court’s decision, but cannot wholeheartedly endorse the entirety of part A. I agree that § 9-471(H) is, at best, ambiguous and confusing, and at worst, impossible to decipher. I conclude that the legislature, when enacting this statute, failed to contemplate, and therefore did not address, a host of variables, including the factual scenario of this case. In fairness, I doubt that any legislation could anticipate the wide variation in facts that can be imagined, including those presented here. Nonetheless, I have trouble concluding, as does the majority, that the legislature intended the result the trial court reached. And, although this issue may arise again, we need not reach or decide it to resolve this ease. Accordingly, I would rest the decision on the City of Casa Grande’s failure to obtain State approval of this particular annexation, leaving for another, and more appropriate, day the analysis of this perplexing statute.

APPENDIX A

[[Image here]]