Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite City of Phoenix v. Borden Company, 326 P.2d 841.

28 citing documents.

Scottsdale/101 Associates, LLC v. Maricopa County 359 P.3d 1035 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Scottsdale/101 Associates, LLC v. Maricopa County 359 P.3d 1035 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
People’s ¶ 7, –53, (statutes establishing property tax liability—in contrast to those creating an exemption—are “most strongly construed against the government and in favor of the taxpayer”).
Jones Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 355 P.3d 603 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Jones Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 355 P.3d 603 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Edw. C. Levy Co. v. Maricopa County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Edw. C. Levy Co. v. Maricopa County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
–53, (holding that statutes establishing property tax liability are “most strongly construed against the government and in favor of the taxpayer”).
Scottsdale Princess Partnership v. Maricopa County 286 P.3d 174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Scottsdale Princess Partnership v. Maricopa County 286 P.3d 174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue v. Capitol Castings, Inc., ¶ 10 , -53 , (explaining that statutes creating property tax liability are “most strongly construed against the government and in favor of the taxpayer”).
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
Improvement & Power Dist., ¶ 14 , -53 , (statutes establishing property tax liability — in contrast to those creating an exemption — are “most strongly construed against the government and in favor of the taxpayer____”); SFPP, L.P.
Energy Squared, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 56 P.3d 686 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Energy Squared, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 56 P.3d 686 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
-53 , (any doubts about meaning of statute that imposes tax are to be determined in taxpayer’s favor)
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
Nevertheless, , the court held that the City could not tax retail sales occurring beyond the corporate limits of the City.
Wenner v. Dayton-Hudson Corp. 598 P.2d 1022 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Wenner v. Dayton-Hudson Corp. 598 P.2d 1022 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Univar Corp. v. City of Phoenix 594 P.2d 86 Ariz. 1979
Univar Corp. v. City of Phoenix 594 P.2d 86 Ariz. 1979
and City of Phoenix v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., , as precedent for interpreting the current ordinance to forbid imposition of the tax under the instant circumstances.
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
See also, City of Phoenix v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., , Ordinance No. 644, § 11, § 18(A)(8); Ordinance No. 937, § 11(A)(13).
Kipnis v. County of Maricopa 457 P.2d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Kipnis v. County of Maricopa 457 P.2d 714 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Sanders v. Folsom 451 P.2d 612 Ariz. 1969
Sanders v. Folsom 451 P.2d 612 Ariz. 1969
364 ; , ; State Tax Commission v. Wallapai Brick & Clay Products, Inc., , ; Corporation Commission v. Equitable Life Assur.
Campbell v. Commonwealth Plan, Inc. 416 P.2d 199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Campbell v. Commonwealth Plan, Inc. 416 P.2d 199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
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., , .