65, 71, ¶ 24, 961 P.2d 1013, 1019 (1998). Nevertheless, Arizona courts normally impose standing requirements as a matter of judicial restraint to ensure that their decisions are not moot or merely advisory, “and that the issues will be fully developed by true adversaries.” Armory Park Neighborhood Ass’n v. Episcopal Community Servs., 148 Ariz. 1, 6, 712 P.2d 914, 919 (1985). A plaintiff may gain standing by alleging an injury resulting from the defendant’s putatively unconstitutional conduct. Cf. Sears, 192 Ariz. at 70, ¶ 23, 961 P.2d at 1018. ¶ 13 US West intervened in the administrative proceedings resulting from the Commission’s grant of CC & Ns to the Competitors, and it appears to have vigorously litigated the issues before us both in those proceedings an 9 P.2d 394, 397 (1997) (<HOLDING>). C. US West’s Constitutional Issues ¶ 14 US
holding that a jurys finding that a city had delegated its final policymaking authority in the area of law enforcement to a city police chief was supported by the evidence and warranted imposing liability upon the city holding that the city had standing to challenge the constitutionality of a statute allowing certain communities within the same county as the city to incorporate as towns without the citys consent holding that citys enforcement of the entire state penal code would not constitute a city policy because the city was required to follow state law holding that a city may be held liable on account of the unconstitutional conduct of city officials only if the citys policy or custom played a part in the violation holding that the city had standing to challenge the formation of a water improvement district that might impede the citys expansion