Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Stewart Title & Trust of Tucson v. Pima County, 751 P.2d 552.

32 citing documents.

Maricopa v. Hon. viola/el Rancho Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Maricopa v. Hon. viola/el Rancho Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Thomas & King, ¶ 8 (App. 2004); cf. A.R.S.
Qasimyar v. Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Qasimyar v. Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
CNL Hotels & Resorts, Inc. v. Maricopa County 244 P.3d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
CNL Hotels & Resorts, Inc. v. Maricopa County 244 P.3d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
relied on by the tax court, nor Stewart Title & , cited by Taxpayers, provides substantial guidance.
Sun City Grand Community Ass'n v. Maricopa County 164 P.3d 679 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Sun City Grand Community Ass'n v. Maricopa County 164 P.3d 679 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
at 123-24, , 800 P.2d at 989 -90 (citing Stewart Title & -40, 243 , -56, 559 (App. 1987), superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized in RenalWest L.C.
Krausz v. Maricopa County 28 P.3d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Krausz v. Maricopa County 28 P.3d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Stewart Title & -43 , -59 (App.1987), superseded by statute on other grounds recognized by City of Phoenix v. Paper Distribs.
Southwest Airlines Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 4 P.3d 1018 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Southwest Airlines Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 4 P.3d 1018 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
” We respectfully disagree with both the tax court and Stewart Title on this issue.
Renalwest L.C. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 943 P.2d 769 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Renalwest L.C. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 943 P.2d 769 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
See Inspiration, , ; Stewart Title &amp
Cyprus Bagdad Copper Corp. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 935 P.2d 923 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Cyprus Bagdad Copper Corp. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 935 P.2d 923 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
-32 , -89 (App.1985), and Stewart Title & , both property tax cases which had held that the pre-amendment predecessors of A.R.S.
City of Phoenix v. Paper Distributors of Arizona, Inc. 925 P.2d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
City of Phoenix v. Paper Distributors of Arizona, Inc. 925 P.2d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
See Inspiration Consolidated Copper Co. v. Arizona Dep’t of Revenue, , (“The provisions of subsections (A)(2) and (A)(3) of the statute are unambiguous and directly applicable to property tax valuation issues”); Stewart Title &amp
Tile USA v. Maricopa County 855 P.2d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Tile USA v. Maricopa County 855 P.2d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Bromley Group, Ltd. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 826 P.2d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Bromley Group, Ltd. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 826 P.2d 1158 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Hayden Partners Ltd. Partnership v. Maricopa County 800 P.2d 987 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Hayden Partners Ltd. Partnership v. Maricopa County 800 P.2d 987 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
taxpayers sought to preserve a beneficial agricultural *124 designation for land that they had purchased for investment, and they established to the satisfaction of the trial court that, despite their investment purpose, they were devoting the land to current uses that met departmental crite
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
However, in Stewart Title & , without discussing Pesqueira , Division Two properly recognized that a provision of the Department of Revenue's agricultural manual that was contrary to statutory intent "may not properly be considered ...” 156 Ariz. at 243 , 751 P.2d at 559 .
Arizona Tax Research Ass'n v. Department of Revenue 787 P.2d 1051 Ariz. 1989
Arizona Tax Research Ass'n v. Department of Revenue 787 P.2d 1051 Ariz. 1989
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
PROPRIETY OF NON-AGRICULTURAL CLASSIFICATION “Assessed valuation, against which the tax rate is applied to determine the amount of taxes owed, is a percentage of full cash value, and that percentage is determined by the property’s classification.” Stewart Title & -38 , -54 (App.1987); see also A.R.S.
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
Stewart Title & , A.R.S.