Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Karbal v. Arizona Department of Revenue, 158 P.3d 243.

28 citing documents.

In Re Term of Parental Rights as to A.A. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
In Re Term of Parental Rights as to A.A. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Karbal v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, ¶ 6 (App. 2007).
Harold Vangilder v. ador/pinal County Ariz. 2022
Harold Vangilder v. ador/pinal County Ariz. 2022
¶7 Under Arizona law, an excise tax is assessed on the privilege or right to engage in an occupation or business; it is paid by the business providing the service and is “not a tax upon the sale itself.” Karbal v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, ¶ 10 (App. 2007) (quoting Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue v. Mountain States Tel.
Strojnik v. Kashyap Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Strojnik v. Flagexpress, LLC Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Strojnik v. Flagexpress, LLC Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Karbal v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, ¶ 19 (App. 2007).
Strojnik v. Kashyap Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Karbal v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, ¶ 19 (App. 2007).
Montelongo-Morales v. Driscoll Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Montelongo-Morales v. Driscoll Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Vangilder v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Vangilder v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
-18, ¶¶ 11, 16-17 (App. 2007) (holding a customer lacked standing to challenge an excise tax because “[t]he legal incidence of the transaction privilege tax is on the seller”) ().
Brody v. Polsinelli Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Brody v. Polsinelli Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
To have standing, a plaintiff must have suffered “an injury in fact, economic or otherwise, caused by the complained-of conduct, and resulting in a distinct and palpable injury giving the plaintiff a personal stake in the controversy’s outcome.” Karbal v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, ¶ 7 (App. 2007) (citation omitted).
Saban v. Ador 418 P.3d 1066 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Saban v. Ador 418 P.3d 1066 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 11 (App. 2007), a car-rental customer raised some of the same arguments made here against the surcharge, but we ruled that the customer lacked standing because the surcharge is imposed on the car- rental companies, not the customers.
Bmo Harris v. Thruston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Bmo Harris v. Thruston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See Karbal v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, ¶ 6 (App. 2007).
Peters v. Prescott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Peters v. Prescott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See Karbal v. Arizona Dep’t of Revenue, ¶ 6 (App. 2007).
CCI Europe, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 344 P.3d 352 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
CCI Europe, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 344 P.3d 352 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
3 CCI EUROPE v. ADOR Opinion of the Court Karbal v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, ¶ 10
State v. Okun 296 P.3d 998 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Okun 296 P.3d 998 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Karbal v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, ¶ 7
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
Karbal v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, ¶ 11
Arizona City Sanitary Dist. v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Arizona City Sanitary Dist. v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
See Karbal v. Arizona Dep’t of Rev., see also Fernandez v. Takata Seat Belts, Inc.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by