Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Walgreen Arizona Drug Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue, 97 P.3d 896.

32 citing documents.

McCaw v. Az. Snowbowl Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
McCaw v. Az. Snowbowl Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
See Walgreen Ariz. Drug Co. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, ¶ 12 (App. 2004) (explaining courts “interpret statutes to give them a fair and sensible meaning and to avoid absurd results”).
Heritage v. Adhs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Heritage v. Adhs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
See Walgreen Ariz. Drug Co. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, ¶ 21 (App. 2004) (rejecting an argument, in a tax case, that the “definition of ‘sales’ is a straightforward concept that is susceptible of a plain-reading construction”); Sun City Grand Cmty.
Loma Mariposa v. Santa Cruz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Loma Mariposa v. Santa Cruz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See Walgreen Ariz. Drug Co. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, ¶ 6 (App. 2004).
Phoenix Cement v. Yavapai Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Phoenix Cement v. Yavapai Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Walgreen Ariz. Drug Co. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, ¶ 6 (App. 2004).
Respect the Promise in Opposition to R-14-02-Neighbors for a Better Glendale v. Hanna 360 P.3d 92 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Respect the Promise in Opposition to R-14-02-Neighbors for a Better Glendale v. Hanna 360 P.3d 92 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
See Walgreen Ariz. Drug Co. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, ¶ 12 (2004) (explaining we interpret statutes “to give them a fair and sensible meaning and to avoid absurd results”).
Harris Corp. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 312 P.3d 1143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Harris Corp. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 312 P.3d 1143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
§§ 43-1131 to -1150; see Walgreen Arizona Drug Co. v. Arizona Dep’t of *380 Revenue, ¶ 7
Cable One, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 304 P.3d 1098 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Cable One, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 304 P.3d 1098 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
§ 42-14401, see Walgreen Ariz. Drug Co. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, ¶ 14 , (interpreting “unless the context otherwise requires” in another statute), that flexibility does not allow us to disregard legislative intent or to read into the statute terms, limits, or requirements that are simply not there.
Home Depot USA, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 287 P.3d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Home Depot USA, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 287 P.3d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Walgreen Ariz. Drug Co. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, ¶ 6
R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 229 P.3d 266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 229 P.3d 266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Recognizing that “the context of the transaction must be considered in determining whether a ‘sale’ actually occurred,” Walgreen Ariz. Drug Co. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, ¶ 21 , we again analyzed the sales factor ratio as it applies to intangibles in M.D.C.
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Central Newspapers, Inc. 218 P.3d 1083 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Central Newspapers, Inc. 218 P.3d 1083 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Walgreen Ariz. Drug Co. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, ¶ 12
M.D.C. Holdings, Inc. v. State Ex Rel. Arizona Department of Revenue 216 P.3d 1208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
M.D.C. Holdings, Inc. v. State Ex Rel. Arizona Department of Revenue 216 P.3d 1208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Walgreen Ariz. Drug Co. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, ¶ 12
In Re Estate of Newman 196 P.3d 863 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
In Re Estate of Newman 196 P.3d 863 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Walgreen Ariz. Drug Co. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, ¶ 6 , (“Questions of statutory interpretation are issues of law subject to de novo review.”); ¶3 , (“[w]hether a defendant is entitled to a jury trial ...
Sun City Grand Community Ass'n v. Maricopa County 164 P.3d 679 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Sun City Grand Community Ass'n v. Maricopa County 164 P.3d 679 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
See Walgreen Ariz. Drug Co. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, ¶ 18 , (citing Am.
Girouard v. Skyline Steel, Inc. 158 P.3d 255 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Girouard v. Skyline Steel, Inc. 158 P.3d 255 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Walgreen Ariz. Drug Co. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, ¶ 12
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District 126 P.3d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District 126 P.3d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
See Walgreen Ariz. Drug Co. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, ¶ 6
Joffe v. Acacia Mortgage Corp. 121 P.3d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Joffe v. Acacia Mortgage Corp. 121 P.3d 831 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Walgreen Ariz. Drug Co. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Rev., ¶ 6