Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite S & R PROPERTIES v. Maricopa County, 875 P.2d 150.

36 citing documents.

Wright v. Mailatyar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Wright v. Mailatyar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Furthermore, § 12-2102(C) does not bar appellate review if “the court made factual determinations sitting without a jury.” S & R
Haworth v. Ligon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Haworth v. Ligon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
P. 54(g)(4); see also S & R -05 (App. 1993) (“Although trial courts have wide discretion in determining the amount of attorneys’ fees, the award must have a reasonable basis in the record.”).
Wells Fargo v. Crown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Wells Fargo v. Crown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Because this case was decided by a judge and not a jury, the issue is properly before us. S & R
Hess v. Purcell 274 P.3d 520 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Hess v. Purcell 274 P.3d 520 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
v. Maricopa County, -03 , -62 (App.1993) (citing Exodyne Props., , ) (plaintiff taxpayers were prevailing parties under § 12-2030 even though they did not prevail on their original relief request for refunds).
BILKE v. State 209 P.3d 1056 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
BILKE v. State 209 P.3d 1056 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
entitled “mandamus.” Id.; see also John C. Lincoln, 208 Ariz. at 545-46, ¶ 46-47 , 96 P.3d at 543-44 (explaining that, if the facts of the case established a refusal “to perform a duty imposed by law,” attorneys’ fees would be recoverable under § 12-2030 for compelling performance of the duty even though the action was not instituted as a mandamus action); S & R , (holding that § 12-2030(A) applied because taxpayer-plaintiffs sought enforcement of a statutory duty and “thus asked for relief
Enterprise Leasing Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 211 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Enterprise Leasing Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 211 P.3d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
DaimlerChrysler Services North America, LLC v. Arizona Department of Revenue 110 P.3d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
DaimlerChrysler Services North America, LLC v. Arizona Department of Revenue 110 P.3d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Baker v. Arizona Department of Revenue 105 P.3d 1180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Baker v. Arizona Department of Revenue 105 P.3d 1180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
The Bakers similarly misplace their reliance upon S & R , and E.C.
Navajo County v. Property Tax Oversight Commission 56 P.3d 65 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Navajo County v. Property Tax Oversight Commission 56 P.3d 65 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
See generally Hayden Partners Ltd. P’ , (ordering refunds based on misclassification, as “undetermined usage” rather than “residential use” property, of vacant and partially completed properties intended for residential use); S & R , (invalidating amendment of A.R.S.
Hurley Trucking Co. v. State ex rel. Arizona Department of Transportation 39 P.3d 527 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Hurley Trucking Co. v. State ex rel. Arizona Department of Transportation 39 P.3d 527 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
v. Maricopa County, , E.C.
Shelby School v. Arizona State Board of Education 962 P.2d 230 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Shelby School v. Arizona State Board of Education 962 P.2d 230 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Westin Tucson Hotel Co. v. State Department of Revenue 936 P.2d 183 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Westin Tucson Hotel Co. v. State Department of Revenue 936 P.2d 183 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Westin disagrees, citing S & R , , to support its position.
Abrams Airborne Manufacturing, Inc. v. State Department of Revenue 917 P.2d 1236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Abrams Airborne Manufacturing, Inc. v. State Department of Revenue 917 P.2d 1236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
-02 , -61 (App.1993) (citations omitted).
First Interstate Bank v. State Department of Revenue 916 P.2d 1149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
First Interstate Bank v. State Department of Revenue 916 P.2d 1149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
The Bank cites S & R , for the proposition that the availability of an appeal does not foreclose a special action under A.R.S.
Ringier American v. ST. OF ARIZ. DEPT. OF REVENUE 908 P.2d 64 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Ringier American v. ST. OF ARIZ. DEPT. OF REVENUE 908 P.2d 64 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
For this proposition, Ringier cites S & R
Bull HN Information Systems v. State Department of Revenue 916 P.2d 1109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Bull HN Information Systems v. State Department of Revenue 916 P.2d 1109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Widger v. Arizona Department of Revenue 903 P.2d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Widger v. Arizona Department of Revenue 903 P.2d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
DISCUSSION In light of our recent opinions in S & R , and E.C.
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

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by