Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Pima County v. Cyprus-Pima Mining Co., 579 P.2d 1081.

26 citing documents.

In Re: Steven R. Drummond, Mary A. Drummond 543 P.3d 1022 Ariz. 2024
In Re: Steven R. Drummond, Mary A. Drummond 543 P.3d 1022 Ariz. 2024
) (explaining that substantial compliance “tolerates errors if the purpose of the relevant statutory requirements was nevertheless fulfilled”); ¶ 14 (2005) (allowing substantial compliance with initiative petition statutes if the petition “fulfills the purpose of the relevant statutory or constitutional requirements”); (allowing substantial compliance with statute requiring payment of disputed taxes because “spirit of the law” was satisfied).
Mesquite v. Ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Mesquite v. Ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
at *4, ¶ 16; (The expert’s capitalization method was not competent evidence when he departed from projected copper prices and failed to adjust for inflation.).
Transwestern v. Ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Transwestern v. Ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
(finding expert's capitalization-of-income method was not competent evidence when he departed from projected copper prices and failed to adjust for inflation); cf. Magna Inv.
Phoenix Cement v. Yavapai Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Phoenix Cement v. Yavapai Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
v. Cyprus-Pima Mining Co., (holding that the County’s right to appeal a tax valuation “is statutory and the method provided by the Legislature is exclusive.”).
Sonoran Peaks, LLC v. Maricopa County 340 P.3d 1107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Sonoran Peaks, LLC v. Maricopa County 340 P.3d 1107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
v. Cyprus-Pima Mining Co.
Citizens Telecommunications Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 75 P.3d 123 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Citizens Telecommunications Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 75 P.3d 123 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
See Pima County v. Cyprus-Pima Mining Co., 119 Ariz. Ill, 114
Tucson Electric Power Co. v. Apache County 912 P.2d 9 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Tucson Electric Power Co. v. Apache County 912 P.2d 9 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
appellees asserted that El Paso’s failure to pay its second half taxes deprived the court of subject-matter jurisdiction over its property tax challenges for 1990 and 1991.
Bull HN Information Systems v. State Department of Revenue 916 P.2d 1109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Bull HN Information Systems v. State Department of Revenue 916 P.2d 1109 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Aesthetic Property Maintenance, Inc. v. Capitol Indemnity Corp. 900 P.2d 1210 Ariz. 1995
Aesthetic Property Maintenance, Inc. v. Capitol Indemnity Corp. 900 P.2d 1210 Ariz. 1995
(allowing substantial compliance with statute requiring payment of disputed taxes because “spirit of the law” was satisfied); , (only substantial compliance with annexation statute required; “[ajbsolute and literal co
Turf Paradise, Inc. v. Maricopa County 878 P.2d 1375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Turf Paradise, Inc. v. Maricopa County 878 P.2d 1375 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
(right to appeal is statutory and method is exclusive).
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
579 P.2d *220 1075 (1978); , , , County of Maricopa v. North Central Development Company, 27 Ariz.App.
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Cyprus-Bagdad Copper Co. 596 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1979
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Cyprus-Bagdad Copper Co. 596 P.2d 31 Ariz. 1979
Caldwell v. Department of Revenue 596 P.2d 45 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Caldwell v. Department of Revenue 596 P.2d 45 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979