Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite City of Phoenix v. Arizona Sash, Door & Glass Co., 293 P.2d 438.

29 citing documents.

A & P RANCH LTD v. COCHISE COUNTY Ariz. 2026
City of Phoenix v. Ariz. Sash, Door & Glass Co.
MacHu v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
MacHu v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
¶18 As subdivisions of the state, counties “have only such legislative powers as have been expressly, or by necessary implication, delegated to them by constitution or by the legislature.” City of Phoenix v. Ariz. Sash, Door & Glass Co., amended on reh’g
Harold Vangilder v. ador/pinal County Ariz. 2022
Harold Vangilder v. ador/pinal County Ariz. 2022
These powers will be strictly construed.” City of Phoenix v. Ariz. Sash, Door & Glass Co., amended on reh’g, (internal citation omitted); see also Associated Dairy Prods.
Jachimek v. State 74 P.3d 944 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Jachimek v. State 74 P.3d 944 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
City of Phoenix v. Ariz. Sash, Door & Glass Co., -03
Union Transportes De Nogales v. City of Nogales 985 P.2d 1025 Ariz. 1999
Union Transportes De Nogales v. City of Nogales 985 P.2d 1025 Ariz. 1999
See City of Phoenix v. Arizona Sash, Door & Glass Co.
Centric-Jones Co. v. Town of Marana 937 P.2d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Centric-Jones Co. v. Town of Marana 937 P.2d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
This argument is based on language from the supreme court case of City of Phoenix v. Arizona Sash, Door & Glass Co., , , modified on other grounds
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. City of Phoenix 645 P.2d 1251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. City of Phoenix 645 P.2d 1251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
In City of Phoenix v. Arizona Sash, Door & Glass Co., , it was determined that the Phoenix Privilege Tax was a valid tax on the privilege of doing business in Phoenix, and that it applied despite the fact: ...
Univar Corp. v. City of Phoenix 594 P.2d 86 Ariz. 1979
Univar Corp. v. City of Phoenix 594 P.2d 86 Ariz. 1979
See City of Phoenix v. Arizona Sash, Door & Glass Co., *225
Flagstaff Vending Co. v. City of Flagstaff 578 P.2d 985 Ariz. 1978
Flagstaff Vending Co. v. City of Flagstaff 578 P.2d 985 Ariz. 1978
City of Phoenix v. Arizona Sash, Door & Glass Co.
City of Tempe v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America 510 P.2d 745 Ariz. 1973
City of Tempe v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America 510 P.2d 745 Ariz. 1973
City of Phoenix v. Arizona Sash, Door & Glass Co.
Home Builders Ass'n of Central Arizona, Inc. v. Riddel 510 P.2d 376 Ariz. 1973
Home Builders Ass'n of Central Arizona, Inc. v. Riddel 510 P.2d 376 Ariz. 1973
“[T]he power to tax * * * exists in municipal corporations only to the extent to which it is clearly conferred by the charter or state statutes * * Phoenix v. Arizona Sash, Door & Glass Co., -103 , , modified
City of Scottsdale v. Superior Court 439 P.2d 290 Ariz. 1968
City of Scottsdale v. Superior Court 439 P.2d 290 Ariz. 1968
The cities and towns of this state are municipal corporations created by the state and possessory of no greater powers than those delegated to them by the constitution and the general laws of the state, City of Phoenix v. Arizona Sash, Door and Glass Co., , ; , .
City of Phoenix v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 412 P.2d 693 Ariz. 1966
City of Phoenix v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 412 P.2d 693 Ariz. 1966
City of Phoenix v. Arizona Sash, Door & Glass Co., , .
City of Phoenix v. Williams 361 P.2d 651 Ariz. 1961
City of Phoenix v. Williams 361 P.2d 651 Ariz. 1961
City of Phoenix v. Arizona Sash, Door & Glass Co., , , opinion amended , .
City of Phoenix v. Borden Company 326 P.2d 841 Ariz. 1958
City of Phoenix v. Borden Company 326 P.2d 841 Ariz. 1958
In the case of City of Phoenix v. Arizona Sash, Door & Glass Co., , , we held Phoenix Ordinance No. 5121 constitutional, which is verbatim, with certain amendments, to the new privilege license tax Ordinance No. G-93 involved herein.