Arizona State Tax Commission v. Ensign
The holding in the court’s own words
In fairness to the parties who relied upon the previous holding of this court — in the Pratt-Gilbert case — that transactions of the character here involved were nontaxable under the Excise Revenue Act of 1935, 'as amended, we now hold that our decision in the instant case be given prospective effect only and it is so ordered.
Quoted verbatim from the opinion — no paraphrase, nothing generated. Not yet human-reviewed. How we work.
Cited by
- Arizona Department of Revenue v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. 937 P.2d 363 Ariz. Ct. App. 1996
- Valencia Energy Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 938 P.2d 474 Ariz. Ct. App. 1996
- PCS, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 925 P.2d 680 Ariz. Ct. App. 1995
- Wilderness World, Inc. v. Department of Revenue 895 P.2d 108 Ariz. 1995
- Tucson Electric Power Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 822 P.2d 498 Ariz. Ct. App. 1991
- State ex rel. Arizona Department of Revenue v. Arizona Sand & Rock Co. 745 P.2d 116 Ariz. 1987
- Chevron Chemical Co. v. Superior Court 641 P.2d 1275 Ariz. 1982
- State v. Mendibles 606 P.2d 825 Ariz. Ct. App. 1979
- Reed v. Reed 604 P.2d 648 Ariz. Ct. App. 1979
- Keeton v. Industrial Commission 554 P.2d 898 Ariz. Ct. App. 1976
- Adams v. Industrial Commission 547 P.2d 1089 Ariz. Ct. App. 1976
- Hollywood Continental Films v. Industrial Commission 506 P.2d 274 Ariz. Ct. App. 1973
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Duhame v. State Tax Commission 179 P.2d 252
- O'Malley v. Sims 75 P.2d 50
Opinion text
UDALL, Justice. The appellees’ motion for rehearing, supported by their own brief and that of amici curiae, presents but little in the form of new cases, reasoning, or logic that was not considered in drafting the original opinion. We see no occasion to depart from our previous decision. However, since the decision heretofore-rendered has no provision limiting its.. application to future transactions, the decision will operate retrospectively unless, we expressly order otherwise. There is. ample precedent in this jurisdiction that ini tax matters — when a previous decision is. overruled — the new decision be given prospective effect only.' See, O’Malley v. *377 Si ms, 51 Ariz. 155 , 75 P.2d 50, 53 , 115 A.L.R. 634 ; Duhame v. State Tax Commission, 65 Ariz. 268 , 179 P.2d 252, 259 , 171 A.L.R. 684 . In fairness to the parties who relied upon the previous holding of this court — in the Pratt-Gilbert case — that transactions of the character here involved were nontaxable under the Excise Revenue Act of 1935, 'as amended, we now hold that our decision in the instant case be given prospective effect only and it is so ordered. The motion for rehearing is denied. STANFORD, C. J., PHELPS and LA PRADE, JJ., and FARLEY, Superior Court Judge, concur.