Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Graham County & the Arizona State Department v. Graham County Electric Cooperative, Inc., 512 P.2d 11.

40 citing documents.

Mesquite v. Ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Mesquite v. Ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Coop., Inc., –70 (1973).
Transwestern v. Ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Transwestern v. Ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Coop., Inc., -70 (1973).
Swvp-Gts Mr v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Swvp-Gts Mr v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Coop., Inc., ) (statute later renumbered).
Phoenix Cement v. Yavapai Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Phoenix Cement v. Yavapai Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Co-op., Inc., -70 (1973).
Crystal Point Joint Venture v. Arizona Department of Revenue 932 P.2d 1367 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Crystal Point Joint Venture v. Arizona Department of Revenue 932 P.2d 1367 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Coop., , a utility appealed property valuations set by the state taxing authority.
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Superior Court 938 P.2d 98 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Superior Court 938 P.2d 98 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Coop., Inc., -70 , -13 (1973).
Recreation Centers of Sun City, Inc. v. Maricopa County 782 P.2d 1174 Ariz. 1989
Recreation Centers of Sun City, Inc. v. Maricopa County 782 P.2d 1174 Ariz. 1989
Coop., Inc., 109 Ariz 468
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Trico Electric Cooperative, Inc. 729 P.2d 898 Ariz. 1986
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Trico Electric Cooperative, Inc. 729 P.2d 898 Ariz. 1986
We have held that using the income approach to calculate full cash value of property owned by a cooperative utility is “fundamentally wrong” because such an entity “is a non-profit corporation, and it sets its rates with the deliberate intention of not making a profit.” Graham County v. Graham County Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Arizona Public Service Co. v. City of Phoenix 716 P.2d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Arizona Public Service Co. v. City of Phoenix 716 P.2d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
See Graham County v. Graham County Electric Coop., Inc.
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
Graham County v. Graham County Electric Cooperative, Inc., , Department of Property Valuation v. Trico Electric Co-Op, Inc., , , Honeywell Information Systems, , Department of
State v. Grilz 666 P.2d 1059 Ariz. 1983
State v. Grilz 666 P.2d 1059 Ariz. 1983
See Department of Property Valuation v. Trico Electric Cooperative, Inc., , , Graham County v. Graham County Electric Cooperative, Inc., , , (presumption established by A.R.S.
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.
Golder v. Department of Revenue, State Board of Tax Appeals 599 P.2d 216 Ariz. 1979
Golder v. Department of Revenue, State Board of Tax Appeals 599 P.2d 216 Ariz. 1979
Graham County v. Graham County Electric Co-op., Inc.
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 have held: “It is clear that before the superior court may change the valuation it must first find that the valuation of the assessing authority is excessive.” Graham County v. Graham County Electric Coop., Inc.
Pima County v. Cyprus-Pima Mining Co. 579 P.2d 1081 Ariz. 1978
Mohave County v. Duval Corp., supra; , Navajo County v. Four Corners Pipe Line, supra.
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
Graham County v. Graham County Electric Cooperative, Inc.
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
When the taxpayer challenges the assessment in superior court, he has the burden of proving that the assessment is excessive and must “present evidence from which the trial court can determine the full cash value of the property in question.” Graham County v. Graham County Electric Coop., Inc.
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
v. Phelps Dodge Corp., , and Graham County v. Graham County Electric Coop., Inc.
Department of Property Valuation v. Cookey 534 P.2d 278 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Department of Property Valuation v. Cookey 534 P.2d 278 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Graham County v. Graham County Electric Coop., Inc.
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
When the opposite party has produced prima facie evidence, the presumption has spent its force and served its purpose, and the party in whose behalf it had theretofore operated must meet the opponent’s prima facie case with evidence and not with presumptions’.” (Citations omitted, emphasis original)