11668-PR
Precedential
Processed
Hillock v. Bade
Cited by
Explained in 1
- Aileen H. Char Life Interest v. Maricopa County 93 P.3d 486 Ariz. 2004
- Medasys Acquisition Corp. v. SDMS, P.C. 55 P.3d 763 Ariz. 2002
- Aida Renta Trust v. Department of Revenue 3 P.3d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
- Tucson Mechanical Contracting, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 854 P.2d 1162 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
- Wyatt v. Wehmueller 806 P.2d 870 Ariz. 1991
- Hibbs v. Calcot, Ltd. 801 P.2d 445 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
- Landin v. Ford 727 P.2d 331 Ariz. 1986
- Berry v. McLeod 604 P.2d 610 Ariz. 1979
- Fousel v. Ted Walker Mobile Homes, Inc. 602 P.2d 507 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
- Parks v. MacRo-dynamics, Inc. 591 P.2d 1005 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
- Honeywell Information Systems, Inc. v. Maricopa County 575 P.2d 801 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
- County of Maricopa v. North Central Development Co. 566 P.2d 688 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Hillock v. Bade 22 Ariz. App. 46
Opinion text
PER CURIAM. In this matter, the Court of Appeals, see 22 Ariz.App. 46 , 523 P.2d 97 (1974), held in an extensive written opinion that the action of the Pima County Assessor, pursuant to a county three-year cyclical, re-evaluation plan was constitutional under Article 9, § 1, of the Arizona Constitution, A. R.S. We accepted review to examine into the question. Our conclusions are in accord with those expressed in the Court of Appeals opinion. The opinion is approved and judgment is ordered in favor of the appellees, cross-appellants as directed therein.