Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Navajo County v. Four Corners Pipe Line Company, 479 P.2d 174.

38 citing documents.

Transwestern v. Ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Transwestern v. Ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
("[I]t is not the function of the judiciary to promulgate tax assessment regulations in the form of judicial opinions.").
Inspiration Consolidated Copper Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 709 P.2d 573 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Inspiration Consolidated Copper Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 709 P.2d 573 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
The split in Arizona decisional law appears to have developed as a , and the rationale finally adopted by the court in its supplemental opinion on rehearing
New Pueblo Constructors, Inc. v. State 696 P.2d 185 Ariz. 1985
New Pueblo Constructors, Inc. v. State 696 P.2d 185 Ariz. 1985
348 , vacated on other grounds, , Atty.
Pesqueira v. Pima County Assessor 650 P.2d 1237 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Pesqueira v. Pima County Assessor 650 P.2d 1237 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Magna Investment & Development Corp. v. Pima County 625 P.2d 354 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Magna Investment & Development Corp. v. Pima County 625 P.2d 354 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Department of Property Valuation v. Trico Electric Cooperative, Inc., , Graham County v. Graham County Electric Cooperative, Inc., , , reh.
Pima County v. Cyprus-Pima Mining Co. 579 P.2d 1081 Ariz. 1978
Mohave County v. Duval Corp. 579 P.2d 1075 Ariz. 1978
Mohave County v. Duval Corp. 579 P.2d 1075 Ariz. 1978
we quoted with approval this language: “ ‘It is generally recognized that a taxpayer is not entitled to relief * * * simply because the value of his property would be fixed substantially lower if computed by a different method even if the court thought such method to be preferable to t
Pima County v. Cyprus-Pima Mining Co. 579 P.2d 1081 Ariz. 1978
Mohave County v. Duval Corp., supra; , rehearing denied
Rancho Del Oro Apartment Co. v. State 579 P.2d 1107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Rancho Del Oro Apartment Co. v. State 579 P.2d 1107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
The court’s function in this area of taxation is the same as in the other traditional areas of administrative law; that is to review the actions of such administrative bodies and to super-impose its opinion only in the event that the agency abused its legislatively-delegated duty.”
County of Maricopa v. North Central Development Co. 556 P.2d 1164 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
County of Maricopa v. North Central Development Co. 556 P.2d 1164 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Department of Property Valuation v. Trico Electric Cooperative, Inc. 546 P.2d 804 Ariz. 1976
Department of Property Valuation v. Trico Electric Cooperative, Inc. 546 P.2d 804 Ariz. 1976
.a condition precedent to the court’s assumption of jurisdiction to make its own evaluation.”
Security Properties v. Arizona Department of Property Valuation 537 P.2d 924 Ariz. 1975
Security Properties v. Arizona Department of Property Valuation 537 P.2d 924 Ariz. 1975
Appellants did not establish a systematic, intentional discrimination and there was, accordingly, no question presented as to the unconstitutionality of the assessment, Transamerica Development Co. v. County of Maricopa, supra; , McCluskey v. Sparks, supra.
Navajo County v. PEABODY COAL COMPANY 532 P.2d 201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Navajo County v. PEABODY COAL COMPANY 532 P.2d 201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Burns v. Herberger 498 P.2d 536 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Burns v. Herberger 498 P.2d 536 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State Public Works Board v. Stevenson, 5 Cal.App.3d 60 , 84 Cal.Rptr.
Graham County v. Graham County Electric Cooperative, Inc. 494 P.2d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Graham County v. Graham County Electric Cooperative, Inc. 494 P.2d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Since the taxpayer failed to proveby competent evidence that the value placed on its property by the Department of-Valuation was excessive, the Department’s valuation must stand as “correct and lawful:” , , rehearing denied
Talley v. Paradise Memorial Gardens, Inc. 491 P.2d 439 Ariz. 1971
Talley v. Paradise Memorial Gardens, Inc. 491 P.2d 439 Ariz. 1971
County of Pima v. Trico Electric Cooperative 489 P.2d 1219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
County of Pima v. Trico Electric Cooperative 489 P.2d 1219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
If their position is correct, Trico’s failure to prove by competent evidence that the value placed on its property by the Department of Valuation was excessive, leaves the Department’s valuation standing as “correct and lawful.” , , rehearing denied
Transamerica Development Co. v. County of Maricopa 489 P.2d 33 Ariz. 1971
Transamerica Development Co. v. County of Maricopa 489 P.2d 33 Ariz. 1971
states, “The valuation as approved by the state board shall be presumed to be correct and lawful.”
County of Yuma v. Tongeland 488 P.2d 51 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
County of Yuma v. Tongeland 488 P.2d 51 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
rehearing denied, , the court held that in the absence-of sufficient competent evidence to support a finding that the value placed on the property by the Department of Property Valuation was inequitable or excessive, such value must stand as “co
Guard v. County of Maricopa 481 P.2d 873 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Guard v. County of Maricopa 481 P.2d 873 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Navajo County, Arizona, , A.R.S.