Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Peabody Coal Co. v. Navajo County, 572 P.2d 797.

27 citing documents.

Agua Caliete v. ador/yuma Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Agua Caliete v. ador/yuma Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
In other words, “[t]he owner of real property is not personally liable for real property taxes; such taxes represent a lien against the land itself and are not a personal obligation of the property owner.” disapproved of on other grounds by U.S. W. Commc’ns, Inc. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, Santos, 60 Ariz. at 429 (“The whole proceeding to collect taxes is in rem.”).
State Ex Rel. Mendez v. AMERICAN SUPPORT 100 P.3d 932 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State Ex Rel. Mendez v. AMERICAN SUPPORT 100 P.3d 932 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
¶ 35 American contends that taxes are assessed against the property, not its owner, and that unpaid taxes are a lien against the property, , (owner of real property is not personally liable for real property taxes), , ¶ 11 n. 3
U S West Communications, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 14 P.3d 292 Ariz. 2000
U S West Communications, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 14 P.3d 292 Ariz. 2000
See, , -01 , -22 (App.1987); Quiroz v. Superior Court, 25 Ariz.App.
Forum Development, L.C. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 961 P.2d 1038 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Forum Development, L.C. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 961 P.2d 1038 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
166 Ariz. at 536 , 803 P.2d at 947 ( , , , ).
Pimalco, Inc. v. Maricopa County 937 P.2d 1198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Pimalco, Inc. v. Maricopa County 937 P.2d 1198 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
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
Cammon Consultants Corp. v. Day 889 P.2d 24 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Cammon Consultants Corp. v. Day 889 P.2d 24 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Appellant contends, however, that because the owners of real property in Arizona have no obligation to pay real property taxes, , the taxes are a lien only against the land itself and not a personal obligation of the owners.
Maricopa County v. Superior Court 823 P.2d 696 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Maricopa County v. Superior Court 823 P.2d 696 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Academy Life Insurance v. Odiorne 797 P.2d 727 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Academy Life Insurance v. Odiorne 797 P.2d 727 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Kearney v. Mid-Century Ins.
Recreation Centers of Sun City, Inc. v. Maricopa County 782 P.2d 1174 Ariz. 1989
Cochise County v. Borowiec 781 P.2d 1379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Cochise County v. Borowiec 781 P.2d 1379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Evans v. Young 661 P.2d 1148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Evans v. Young 661 P.2d 1148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
E.g., Arden-Mayfair, supra
Pima County v. Heinfeld 654 P.2d 281 Ariz. 1982
Pima County v. Heinfeld 654 P.2d 281 Ariz. 1982
Arizona Downs v. Arizona Horsemen's Foundation 637 P.2d 1053 Ariz. 1981
Arizona Downs v. Arizona Horsemen's Foundation 637 P.2d 1053 Ariz. 1981