Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite McCluskey v. Sparks, 291 P.2d 791.

62 citing documents.

Greg Mills v. Abtr Ariz. 2022
Greg Mills v. Abtr Ariz. 2022
–400 (1963) (finding a taxpayer had no obligation to use a prescribed administrative remedy that could not correct the systemic undervaluation practices complained about); (concluding the superior court erred by dismissing a suit challenging constitutionally discriminatory valuation of real property for taxing purposes because a tax protest before the county board of equalization and subsequent appeal would not encompass this issue, making the administrative remedy “no remedy
Boruch v. State ex rel. Halikowski 399 P.3d 686 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Boruch v. State ex rel. Halikowski 399 P.3d 686 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
For example, , taxpayers sought an injunction to prevent a county assessor and a county board of equalization from “extending [their] property ...
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
-20 , -94 (1955) (emphasis added and internal citation omitted).
AIDA RENTA TRUST v. Maricopa County 212 P.3d 941 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
AIDA RENTA TRUST v. Maricopa County 212 P.3d 941 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Furthermore, “[t]he mere fact that the assessing officials believed their conduct was valid does not render it less vulnerable to attack as discriminatory.” McCluskey v. Sparks (McCluskey I)
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
(Taxpayer asserted that his properties were assessed at not less than eighty-nine percent of full cash value but comparable properties were assessed at no more than twenty percent on average.); , (alleging that other properties were valued at from five to forty percent of full cash value).
Aileen H. Char Life Interest v. Maricopa County 93 P.3d 486 Ariz. 2004
Aileen H. Char Life Interest v. Maricopa County 93 P.3d 486 Ariz. 2004
¶ 10 We defined the elements a taxpayer must prove to make out a
Aida Renta Trust v. Department of Revenue 3 P.3d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Aida Renta Trust v. Department of Revenue 3 P.3d 1142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
See Security Properties v. Arizona Dep’t of Property Valuation, , , Hibbs, 166 Ariz. at 218 , 801 P.2d at 453 ; Maricopa County v. North Central Dev.
Sonitrol of Maricopa County v. City of Phoenix 891 P.2d 880 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Sonitrol of Maricopa County v. City of Phoenix 891 P.2d 880 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
s context, our supreme court has stated: [B]efore a court will interfere, it must be clearly shown that assessments which are unequal are the result of systematic and intentional conduct—in the sense that the inequality would thereby be deliberately created____
Tucson Mechanical Contracting, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 854 P.2d 1162 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Tucson Mechanical Contracting, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 854 P.2d 1162 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
of violation of constitutional right is largely one of the presence or absence of actual intent to discriminate, despite the fact of substantial, and in some instances great, inequality in taxation necessarily resulting from only partial application of new values.” Security Properties v. Arizona Dep’t of Property Valuation
Zeigler v. Kirschner 781 P.2d 54 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Zeigler v. Kirschner 781 P.2d 54 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Foster v. Thunderbird Irrigation Water Delivery District of Pinal County, No. 3
Valley Vendors Corp. v. City of Phoenix 616 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Valley Vendors Corp. v. City of Phoenix 616 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Town of Chino Valley v. State Land Department 580 P.2d 704 Ariz. 1978
Town of Chino Valley v. State Land Department 580 P.2d 704 Ariz. 1978
Honeywell Information Systems, Inc. v. Maricopa County 575 P.2d 801 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Honeywell Information Systems, Inc. v. Maricopa County 575 P.2d 801 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
County of Maricopa v. North Central Development Co. 566 P.2d 688 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
County of Maricopa v. North Central Development Co. 566 P.2d 688 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Turning to the issue of discriminatory assessment
Pima County v. American Smelting & Refining Co. 564 P.2d 398 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Pima County v. American Smelting & Refining Co. 564 P.2d 398 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Department of Property Valuation v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District 551 P.2d 559 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Department of Property Valuation v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District 551 P.2d 559 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Maricopa County v. Chatwin, 17 Ariz.App.
State v. RELLA VERDE APTS., INC., NO. XXX-XX-XXXX 544 P.2d 675 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
State v. RELLA VERDE APTS., INC., NO. XXX-XX-XXXX 544 P.2d 675 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Finally, , the Court stated: " , we said that to place the county assessor's conduct in a category of an unconstitutional assessment there must be more than a dispute between the taxpayers and the taxing officials as to valuations placed upon properties and that before a court will interfere, it must be clearly shown that the a
State v. Rella Verde Apartments, Inc. 544 P.2d 675 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
State v. Rella Verde Apartments, Inc. 544 P.2d 675 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Finally, , the Court stated: “ , we said that to place the county assessor’s conduct in a category of an unconstitutional assessment there must be more than a dispute between the taxpayers and the taxing officials as to valuations placed upon properties and that before a court will interfere, it must be clearly shown that the a
Security Properties v. Arizona Department of Property Valuation 537 P.2d 924 Ariz. 1975
Security Properties v. Arizona Department of Property Valuation 537 P.2d 924 Ariz. 1975
we said that to *57 place the county assessor’s conduct in the category of an unconstitutional assessment there must be more than a dispute between the taxpayers and the taxing officials as to valuations placed upon properties and that before a court will interfere, it must be clearly shown that
Hillock v. Bade 523 P.2d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
Hillock v. Bade 523 P.2d 97 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
3 The taxpayer did not contend that his property had been valued in excess of its market or full cash value, , , and *49 Southern Pacific Co. v. Cochise County, supra.
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
See e. g., , ; , ; , ; Bade v. Drachman, 4 Ariz.App.
County of Maricopa v. Chatwin 499 P.2d 190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
County of Maricopa v. Chatwin 499 P.2d 190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
B. 10 , injunctive relief against *583 the extending of an assessment upon the rolls was permitted upon a claim of discrimination.
Williams v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN & FOR CTY. OF PIMA, ETC. 494 P.2d 26 Ariz. 1972
Williams v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN & FOR CTY. OF PIMA, ETC. 494 P.2d 26 Ariz. 1972
Johnson v. County of Ramsey 187 N.W.2d 675 Minn. 1971
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
Bade v. Drachman, 4 Ariz.App.
State Tax Commission v. Superior Court 450 P.2d 103 Ariz. 1969