Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Tucson Transit Authority, Inc. v. Nelson, 485 P.2d 816.

26 citing documents.

9w Halo v. Ador Ariz. 2026
9w Halo v. Ador Ariz. 2026
9whalo v. Ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
9whalo v. Ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Carter Oil Co., Inc. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, –42 ¶ 5 (App. 2020) (citing Tucson Transit Auth., ); see also Capitol Castings, 207 Ariz. at 447 ¶ 10 (explaining exemptions conflict with policy to spread burden of taxation equally among taxpayers).
Carter Oil v. Ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Carter Oil v. Ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 363 P.3d 136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 363 P.3d 136 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Because Chevron seeks an exemption from the transaction privilege tax, we apply the general rule that “laws exempting property from taxation are to be strictly construed; the presumption being against such exemption.” Tucson Transit Auth.
Price v. City of Mesa 339 P.3d 650 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Price v. City of Mesa 339 P.3d 650 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶12 “The purpose in requiring an election on general obligation bond issuances is to provide the electors of an affected district with a voice in accepting or rejecting a proposed expenditure which they ultimately may bear.” Tucson Transit Auth.
Friedman v. Cave Creek Unified School District No. 93 299 P.3d 182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Friedman v. Cave Creek Unified School District No. 93 299 P.3d 182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Tucson Transit Auth., , (Kolodziejski did not affect Section 13’s "prior electoral approval requirement.”).
State Ex Rel. Department of Revenue v. Capitol Castings, Inc. 88 P.3d 159 Ariz. 2004
State Ex Rel. Department of Revenue v. Capitol Castings, Inc. 88 P.3d 159 Ariz. 2004
See Tucson Transit Auth., 71 Am.
Long v. Napolitano 53 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Long v. Napolitano 53 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Ariz. Const. art. 7, § 13; Tucson Transit Auth.
City of Tucson v. Corbin 623 P.2d 1239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
City of Tucson v. Corbin 623 P.2d 1239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
See also, Tucson Transit Authority
State Tax Commission v. Anderson Development Corp. 574 P.2d 43 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State Tax Commission v. Anderson Development Corp. 574 P.2d 43 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Appellants’ argument is basically one of legislative intent, and can be stated as follows: First, exemption statutes are strictly construed against the exemption and in favor of the tax, Tucson Transit Authority
Duval Sierrita Corp. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 568 P.2d 1098 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Duval Sierrita Corp. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 568 P.2d 1098 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Tucson Transit Authority
White v. Kaibab Road Improvement District 537 P.2d 986 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
White v. Kaibab Road Improvement District 537 P.2d 986 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Tucson Transit Authority
Meredith Corporation v. State Tax Commission 531 P.2d 197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Meredith Corporation v. State Tax Commission 531 P.2d 197 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Tuscon Transit Authority, , , J. H. Welsh & Son Contracting Co. v. Arizona State Tax Commission, 4 Ariz.App.