Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Airport Properties v. Maricopa County, 985 P.2d 574.

34 citing documents.

Layton v. Layton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Layton v. Layton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
v. Maricopa Cnty., ¶¶ 35–37 (App. 1999).
Swift v. Ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Swift v. Ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 37 (App. 1999) (confirming “the idea that something is ‘subject to’ an influence or action does not communicate the idea that it is continuously and actively affected by that influence or action”).
Vangilder v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Vangilder v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
v. Maricopa Cty., ¶ 35 (App. 1999)).
SolarCity Corp. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 396 P.3d 631 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
SolarCity Corp. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 396 P.3d 631 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
v. Maricopa Cty., , 99 ¶ 37
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, ¶ 35 , (citing Fain Land & , ).
Scenic Arizona v. City of Phoenix Board of Adjustment 268 P.3d 370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Scenic Arizona v. City of Phoenix Board of Adjustment 268 P.3d 370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
See Airport Props, v. Maricopa County, ¶ 36 , (stating we may turn to “recognized, authoritative dictionaries ...
TOHONO O'ODHAM NATION v. City of Glendale 253 P.3d 632 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
TOHONO O'ODHAM NATION v. City of Glendale 253 P.3d 632 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
¶ 23 , 985 * (stating that “We presume that the legislature does not intend to draft statutory provisions that are redundant, void, inert, trivial, superfluous or contradictory”).
Grosvenor Holdings v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Grosvenor Holdings v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
.’ pursuant to [the ARA].” ¶7 P.2d 574 (App. 1999), the respondent judge found the language in the Agreement “must be read, in context, to mean that no appeal must be taken, but if an appeal is taken, it will be, pursuant to ARS § 12-901, processed under the [ARA] in the Superior Court.” And, agreeing with the County, the respondent concl
Green v. Garriott 212 P.3d 96 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Yollin v. City of Glendale 191 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Yollin v. City of Glendale 191 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
§ 1-213 (2002); Airport Props, v. Maricopa County, ¶ 36
Southwest Airlines Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 175 P.3d 700 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Southwest Airlines Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 175 P.3d 700 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
(distinguishing between property exempted from taxation and property the Legislature has not chosen to tax).
State of Arizona v. Charles Scott Newnom Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Marriage of Donlann v. MacGurn 55 P.3d 74 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Marriage of Donlann v. MacGurn 55 P.3d 74 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
v. Maricopa County, ¶ 23 , (presumption that “the legislature does not intend to draft statutory provisions that are redundant, void, inert, trivial, superfluous or contradictory”) ( , ).
Lake Havasu City v. Arizona Department of Health Services 48 P.3d 499 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Lake Havasu City v. Arizona Department of Health Services 48 P.3d 499 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
v. Maricopa County, , 99 ¶ 35
London Bridge Resort, Inc. v. Mohave County 27 P.3d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
London Bridge Resort, Inc. v. Mohave County 27 P.3d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
¶ 17 It is evident that the tax court made its ruling without benefit of this court’s
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
Havasu Springs Resort Co. v. La Paz County 18 P.3d 143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Havasu Springs Resort Co. v. La Paz County 18 P.3d 143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
at 491 , 958 P.2d at 7 ; -97 , -82 (App.1999).
Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n v. Maricopa County 993 P.2d 1137 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n v. Maricopa County 993 P.2d 1137 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
91 ¶ 43, , 586 ¶ 43 (App.1999) (legislative repeal of classification of possessory interests “omits them from the state’s exercise of its power to tax____”).