Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Maricopa County v. Superior Court, 823 P.2d 696.
- ARIZONA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION v. Brewer 243 P.3d 619 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
-
ARIZONA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION v. Brewer
243 P.3d 619
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
(requiring a protectable property interest for a due process claim); Havasu Heights Ranch & Dev.
- SEMPRE LTD. PARTNERSHIP v. Maricopa County 235 P.3d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
-
SEMPRE LTD. PARTNERSHIP v. Maricopa County
235 P.3d 259
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
ANALYSIS ¶ 5 “[T]he right to appeal from a property classification or valuation exists only by force of statute and is limited by the terms of that statute.”
- AIDA RENTA TRUST v. Maricopa County 212 P.3d 941 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
- AIDA RENTA TRUST v. Maricopa County 212 P.3d 941 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
- Circle K Stores, Inc. v. Apache County 18 P.3d 713 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
-
Circle K Stores, Inc. v. Apache County
18 P.3d 713
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
section 42-146); , (holder of first deed-of-trust on which owner is in default is not legal or beneficial owner of property and therefore does not qualify as “taxpayer” entitled to commence ad valorem tax appeal in superior court).
- Frederikson v. Maricopa County 3 P.3d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
-
Frederikson v. Maricopa County
3 P.3d 1024
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
-55 , -703 (App.1991); Federal Deposit Ins.
- Van Emmerik v. Colosi 972 P.2d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
- Van Emmerik v. Colosi 972 P.2d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
- Hennessey v. Superior Court 947 P.2d 872 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
- Hennessey v. Superior Court 947 P.2d 872 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
- Turf Paradise, Inc. v. Maricopa County 878 P.2d 1375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
- Turf Paradise, Inc. v. Maricopa County 878 P.2d 1375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
- Humble v. Superior Court 880 P.2d 629 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
- Humble v. Superior Court 880 P.2d 629 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
- E.C. Garcia & Co. v. Arizona State Department of Revenue 875 P.2d 169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
- E.C. Garcia & Co. v. Arizona State Department of Revenue 875 P.2d 169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
- S & R PROPERTIES v. Maricopa County 875 P.2d 150 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
-
S & R PROPERTIES v. Maricopa County
875 P.2d 150
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Taxpayers Have Property Interests Subject to Due Process Protection “[D]ue process protection vests only when a person has a liberty or property interest that is a protectible interest.”
- Sanchez v. Coxon 854 P.2d 126 Ariz. 1993
-
Sanchez v. Coxon
854 P.2d 126
Ariz. 1993
-51 , -99 (Ct.App.1991).
- Lavit v. Superior Court 839 P.2d 1141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
-
Lavit v. Superior Court
839 P.2d 1141
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Henke, 161 Ariz. at 98-99 , 775 P.2d at 1162-63 (court of appeals accepted special action jurisdiction from the trial court’s denial of a motion to dismiss based on the doctrine of qualified immunity); , (court of appeals deviated from the general rule and accepted jurisdiction from a denial of a motion to dismiss).