Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Navajo County v. Four Corners Pipe Line Company, 486 P.2d 778.

31 citing documents.

Griffith Energy, L.L.C. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 108 P.3d 282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Griffith Energy, L.L.C. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 108 P.3d 282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
(applying de novo standard to valuation decision); Central Citrus Co. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, , (same).
Bogue v. Better-Bilt Aluminum Co. 875 P.2d 1327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
327, 328 , appeal dismissed, , ).
Bella Vista Ranches, Inc. v. Cochise County 767 P.2d 49 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Bella Vista Ranches, Inc. v. Cochise County 767 P.2d 49 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Central Citrus Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 760 P.2d 562 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Central Citrus Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 760 P.2d 562 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Central Citrus maintains that it was entitled to a trial de novo in the superior court
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Navopache Electric Co-Op, Inc. 727 P.2d 813 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Navopache Electric Co-Op, Inc. 727 P.2d 813 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
1690 , 52 L.Ed.2d 384 (1977)
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
Magna Investment & Development Corp. v. Pima County 625 P.2d 354 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Ellis v. Valley National Bank 609 P.2d 1073 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
327, 328 , appeal dismissed
Mohave County v. Duval Corp. 579 P.2d 1075 Ariz. 1978
Mohave County v. Duval Corp. 579 P.2d 1075 Ariz. 1978
and “ * * * in order to overturn the valuation fixed by the taxing authority there must be a finding—substantiated by competent evidence—that such valuation was ‘excessive.’ ”
Pima County v. Cyprus-Pima Mining Co. 579 P.2d 1081 Ariz. 1978
Mohave County v. Duval Corp., supra; , rehearing denied
Honeywell Information Systems, Inc. v. Maricopa County 575 P.2d 801 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Honeywell Information Systems, Inc. v. Maricopa County 575 P.2d 801 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Department of Revenue v. Transamerica Title Insurance 570 P.2d 797 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Department of Revenue v. Transamerica Title Insurance 570 P.2d 797 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
County of Maricopa v. Sperry Rand Corporation 544 P.2d 1094 Ariz. 1976
County of Maricopa v. Sperry Rand Corporation 544 P.2d 1094 Ariz. 1976
Navajo County v. PEABODY COAL COMPANY 532 P.2d 201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Supplemental Opinion , Pima County v. American Smelting and Refining Co., 21 Ariz.App.
Sherrill & La Follette v. County of Mohave 529 P.2d 1200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Sherrill & La Follette v. County of Mohave 529 P.2d 1200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Graham County & the Arizona State Department v. Graham County Electric Cooperative, Inc. 512 P.2d 11 Ariz. 1973
Graham County & the Arizona State Department v. Graham County Electric Cooperative, Inc. 512 P.2d 11 Ariz. 1973
In the Four Corners supplemental opinion ( , [1971]) this Court had occasion to review the principles applicable to tax evaluation assessment cases.
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
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
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 “correct and lawful.”' We agree with the proposition-that

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by