Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Bade v. Drachman, 417 P.2d 689.

44 citing documents.

Church of the Isaiah 58 Project of Arizona, Inc. v. La Paz County 314 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Church of the Isaiah 58 Project of Arizona, Inc. v. La Paz County 314 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
at 72-73, 417 P.2d at 706-07 (noting distinctions between 1964 anti-injunction statute and earlier statutes); -63, -97 (1966) (same).
In Re Anthony H. 994 P.2d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
In Re Anthony H. 994 P.2d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Judicial notice of a fact is proper if the fact is “so notoriously true as not to be subject to reasonable dispute.” , -69 , -03 (1966) (holding that court may take judicial notice of facts that are indisputable and “capable of immediate accurate demonstration”).
Wilderness World, Inc. v. Department of Revenue 895 P.2d 108 Ariz. 1995
Wilderness World, Inc. v. Department of Revenue 895 P.2d 108 Ariz. 1995
Another reason for giving a decision prospective effect only is that retroactivity may threaten the “financial stability of the taxing body.” Fain Land & Cattle, 163 Ariz. at 602 , 790 P.2d at 257 (Corcoran, J., concurring)
Cooley v. Arizona Public Service Co. 839 P.2d 422 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Fain Land & Cattle Co. v. Hassell 790 P.2d 242 Ariz. 1990
Whittemore v. Amator 713 P.2d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Whittemore v. Amator 713 P.2d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Wilco Aviation v. Garfield 599 P.2d 813 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Wilco Aviation v. Garfield 599 P.2d 813 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Allen v. Fisher 574 P.2d 1314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Allen v. Fisher 574 P.2d 1314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
State v. Lynch 562 P.2d 1386 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
State v. Lynch 562 P.2d 1386 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
County of Maricopa v. North Central Development Co. 556 P.2d 1164 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
County of Maricopa v. North Central Development Co. 556 P.2d 1164 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Sunday Lake Iron Co. v. Township of Wakefield, 247 U.S. 350 , 38 S.Ct.
Vigue v. Noyes 550 P.2d 234 Ariz. 1976
Vigue v. Noyes 550 P.2d 234 Ariz. 1976
Even “[a] high degree of probability of the truth of a particular proposition cannot justify a tribunal in taking judicial notice of its truth.” P. 2d 689 (1966).
Jackson v. Pressnell 506 P.2d 261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Jackson v. Pressnell 506 P.2d 261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Transamerica Development Co. v. County of Maricopa 489 P.2d 33 Ariz. 1971
Transamerica Development Co. v. County of Maricopa 489 P.2d 33 Ariz. 1971
There is no question that the County Assessor relied solely on the “Replacement Cost New Less Depreciation” (RCNLD) method, , that “the ignoring of all factors affecting value other than cost of construction less depreciation or replacement cost less depreciation is a discrimination which may be corrected by legal proceedings when the method results in a substantial deviation from true value * * Bade, supra, s
County of Yuma v. Tongeland 488 P.2d 51 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
County of Yuma v. Tongeland 488 P.2d 51 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Annot., 96 A.L.R.2d 666 ; 51 Am.Jur.
Guard v. County of Maricopa 481 P.2d 873 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Guard v. County of Maricopa 481 P.2d 873 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Benedict v. Andalman 475 P.2d 953 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Benedict v. Andalman 475 P.2d 953 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
as authority for the proposition that instead of granting summary judgment, the trial court should have held a hearing to determine the cash value of the property.
Industrial Commission v. Jordan 448 P.2d 895 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Industrial Commission v. Jordan 448 P.2d 895 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
State v. Cutshaw 437 P.2d 962 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
State v. Cutshaw 437 P.2d 962 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Dogarin v. Connor 433 P.2d 653 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Dogarin v. Connor 433 P.2d 653 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
On appeal, this court must construe all evidence favorably to uphold the judgment of the trial court
Arizona Title Insurance & Trust Co. v. Realty Investment Co. 430 P.2d 934 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Arizona Title Insurance & Trust Co. v. Realty Investment Co. 430 P.2d 934 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
State v. Superior Court in and for County of Pima 422 P.2d 393 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
State v. Superior Court in and for County of Pima 422 P.2d 393 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
In Bade v. Drachman, supplemental opinion, , wherein we quoted from previous pronouncements of our Supreme Court to the effect that the matter as to which judicial notice is to be taken “ * * * must be capable of immediate accurate demonstration,” and must be “ * * * indisputable.” (Quote from Phelps Dodge Corporation v. Ford, 68
State v. Superior Court in and for County of Pima 420 P.2d 945 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
State v. Superior Court in and for County of Pima 420 P.2d 945 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Bade v. Drachman (Supplemental Opinion on Motion for Rehearing)
Drachman v. Jay 417 P.2d 704 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Drachman v. Jay 417 P.2d 704 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
The defendants have appealed from this judgment and the matter being determined in an opinion released simultaneously herewith: Bade v. Drachman (2CA-CIV 260)