not conform with the method required by [A.R.S.] § 9471(H)(3).” Id. at 182, ¶ 18, 985 P.2d at 1041. Consequently, the annexation did not comply with at least one of the procedures required by AR.S. § 9471(A), and therefore it did not become final. See A.R.S. § 9471(D). ¶ 10 Nonetheless, the City argues that during the subject period the purported annexation was effective for taxation purposes. We, however, hold that bec lure to obtain consent of a majority of all landowners was not a technical defect but “an absolute requirement before the City had any authority to consider whether or not to annex the land[;]” had the defect been technical, a de facto annexation might have existed until the matter was finally determined); Leach v. Port of Tillamook, 62 Or. 345, 124 P. 642, 642 (1912) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 14 Here, however, the City asserts that the
holding that the judgment was entered without jurisdiction and was therefore a nullity holding that a district courts order of dismissal with prejudice was a nullity because the court lacked jurisdiction holding that absent consent of all parties magistrate judges stay order was beyond his jurisdiction and was in essence a legal nullity holding that annexation was a nullity because it was not obtained with consent of requisite number of voters in area to be annexed and consequently jurisdiction was lacking holding annexation ordinance void