Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Golder v. Department of Revenue, State Board of Tax Appeals, 599 P.2d 216.

61 citing documents.

A & P RANCH LTD v. COCHISE COUNTY Ariz. 2026
See Mesquite Power, LLC v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, ¶ 39 (2024) (recognizing that valuation under Arizona’s property-tax statutes reflects the property’s current use); Golder v. Dep’t of Revenue, –66 (1979) (holding that agricultural property is valued according to its current agricultural use rather than its highest and best use).
Mesquite v. Ador Ariz. 2024
Mesquite v. Ador Ariz. 2024
Golder v. Dep’t of Revenue, see also § 42-16212(B) (allowing parties to present evidence of any matters related to the valuation of the property at a hearing).
Timothy Matthews v. ica/city of tucson/tristar Ariz. 2022
Timothy Matthews v. ica/city of tucson/tristar Ariz. 2022
¶ 21 (2020) (“[W]e give the words their ordinary meaning, unless the context suggests a different one.”); Golder v. Dep’t of Revenue, (“The intent of the Legislature can only be determined by the language used, aided by the canons and rules of construction founded upon reason and experience.” ()); District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 576–77 (2008).
Stambaugh v. Butler 379 P.3d 250 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
ML Servicing Co. v. Coles 334 P.3d 745 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
ML Servicing Co. v. Coles 334 P.3d 745 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Clean Elections v. Hon. brain/bennett Ariz. 2014
Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission v. Brain 322 P.3d 139 Ariz. 2014
Clean Elections v. Hon. brain/bennett Ariz. 2014
And just as a legislator, lobbyist, or other interested party lacks competence to testify about legislative intent in passing a law, Golder v. Dep’t of Revenue, the drafter of a voter initiative is not competent to testify about the voters’ intent in passing that initiative.
Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission v. Brain 322 P.3d 139 Ariz. 2014
And just as a legislator, lobbyist, or other interested party lacks competence to testify about legislative intent in passing a law, Golder v. Dep’t of Revenue, the drafter of a voter initiative is not competent to testify about the voters’ intent in passing that initiative.
Dos Picos Land Ltd. Partnership v. Pima County 240 P.3d 853 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Dos Picos Land Ltd. Partnership v. Pima County 240 P.3d 853 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
No. 1, , mindful that statutory language is the most reliable evidence of the legislature’s intent and construing words “ ‘in conjunction with the full text of the statute,’ ” McMurray, , 202 P.3d at 540 , quoting Golder v. Dep’t of Rev.
SEMPRE LTD. PARTNERSHIP v. Maricopa County 235 P.3d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
SEMPRE LTD. PARTNERSHIP v. Maricopa County 235 P.3d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Additionally, "[t]he rule is clearly established in Arizona that one member of a legislature which passes a law is not competent to testify regarding the intent of the legislature in passing that law.” Golder v. Dep’t of Revenue
McMurray v. Dream Catcher USA, Inc. 202 P.3d 536 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
McMurray v. Dream Catcher USA, Inc. 202 P.3d 536 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Furthermore, “the words of a statute must be construed in conjunction with the full text of the statute.” Golder v. Dep’t of Revenue
SALT RIVER PROJ. AGRIC. IMP. AND POWER DIST. v. Miller Park, LLC 183 P.3d 497 Ariz. 2008
SALT RIVER PROJ. AGRIC. IMP. AND POWER DIST. v. Miller Park, LLC 183 P.3d 497 Ariz. 2008
§ 42-11001(6) (Supp.2007); , (discussing limitation on full cash value in A.R.S.
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Miller Park, L.L.C. 164 P.3d 667 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Miller Park, L.L.C. 164 P.3d 667 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
This language, our supreme court has explained, constitutes “another way of saying that market data valuation [for property tax purposes] must be limited to present usage.” Golder v. Dep’t of Revenue
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. 105 P.3d 1163 Ariz. 2005
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
¶ 18 The State argues that this reasoning does not apply in Arizona because property is valued for tax purposes using "full cash value," which is synonymous with "market value," citing Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") section 42-11001(5) (1999 & Supp.2004)
Long v. City of Glendale 93 P.3d 519 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Long v. City of Glendale 93 P.3d 519 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
US West Communications, Inc. v. City of Tucson 11 P.3d 1054 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
US West Communications, Inc. v. City of Tucson 11 P.3d 1054 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
We find no exception making it admissible and instead adhere to the general rule that “[t]he same logic which prevents one legislator from putting a gloss upon the meaning of a statute based only upon his own individual feelings also prevents a lobbyist or other interested party from doing the same.” Golder v. Dep’t of Revenue
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
Copper Co. v. Arizona Dep’t of Revenue, , (emphasis added)
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
Golder v. Dep’t of Revenue, , (citing Graham County, , ).
Widger v. Arizona Department of Revenue 903 P.2d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Widger v. Arizona Department of Revenue 903 P.2d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Foust 869 P.2d 183 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Foust 869 P.2d 183 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Rotter v. Coconino County 805 P.2d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Rotter v. Coconino County 805 P.2d 1031 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
529, , 1376 (1982); , , Stuart v. Ins.
Hibbs v. Chandler Ginning Co. 790 P.2d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Hibbs v. Chandler Ginning Co. 790 P.2d 297 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
462 , overruled on other grounds
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
§ 42-141(A)(5); , 9 see also Lochmoor Club v. City of Grosse Pointe Woods, 3 Mich.App.
Bella Vista Ranches, Inc. v. Cochise County 767 P.2d 49 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Bella Vista Ranches, Inc. v. Cochise County 767 P.2d 49 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
462 , overruled on other grounds
Central Citrus Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 760 P.2d 562 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Central Citrus Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 760 P.2d 562 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
462, 469 , overruled on other grounds, Golder v. Department of Revenue, State Board of Tax Appeals
Tucson National Golf Club v. Norville 751 P.2d 589 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Tucson National Golf Club v. Norville 751 P.2d 589 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Golder v. Department of Revenue, State Board of Tax Appeals
Stewart Title & Trust of Tucson v. Pima County 751 P.2d 552 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987