Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Southern Pacific Company v. Cochise County, 377 P.2d 770.

108 citing documents.

MacHu v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
MacHu v. Pinal County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
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 discriminato
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 properti
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
McCluskey, 80 Ariz. at 19 , 291 P.2d at 793 .
3613 Ltd. v. Department of Liquor Licenses & Control 978 P.2d 1282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
3613 Ltd. v. Department of Liquor Licenses & Control 978 P.2d 1282 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Valencia Energy Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 938 P.2d 474 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Valencia Energy Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 938 P.2d 474 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Arizona Tax Comm’n v. Ensign, , -93 (1953).
Tucson Electric Power Co. v. Apache County 912 P.2d 9 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Tucson Electric Power Co. v. Apache County 912 P.2d 9 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Finally, this is not a case in which there is any indication that the granting of refunds would “threaten the financial solvency of many taxing units of the state----”
America West Airlines, Inc. v. Deparment of Revenue 880 P.2d 1074 Ariz. 1994
America West Airlines, Inc. v. Deparment of Revenue 880 P.2d 1074 Ariz. 1994
This means that property of the same character must be taxed the same, , and makes our constitution’s tax uniformity clause a guarantee of “[e]quality of opportunity [for] all persons and corporations similarly situated.” , J.C.
Estate of Bohn v. Waddell 848 P.2d 324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Estate of Bohn v. Waddell 848 P.2d 324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
People of Faith, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 829 P.2d 330 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
People of Faith, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 829 P.2d 330 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
for the proposition that when a change in the administrative interpretation of a taxing act results in economic hardship, the new interpretation should apply only prospectively.
Fain Land & Cattle Co. v. Hassell 790 P.2d 242 Ariz. 1990
Pittsburgh & Midway Coal Mining Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 754 P.2d 295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Criticized Pittsburgh & Midway Coal Mining Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 754 P.2d 295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Neumann Caribbean International, Ltd. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 754 P.2d 308 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Neumann Caribbean International, Ltd. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 754 P.2d 308 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
See also, , , Bodco Building Corp. v. State Tax Comm’n, 5 Ariz.App.
Stewart Title & Trust of Tucson v. Pima County 751 P.2d 552 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Stewart Title & Trust of Tucson v. Pima County 751 P.2d 552 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
The court noted the assessors’ use of their individual systems of property classification prior to 1963
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Trico Electric Cooperative, Inc. 729 P.2d 898 Ariz. 1986
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Trico Electric Cooperative, Inc. 729 P.2d 898 Ariz. 1986
Lake Havasu City v. Mohave County 675 P.2d 1371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Lake Havasu City v. Mohave County 675 P.2d 1371 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Dupnik v. MacDougall 664 P.2d 189 Ariz. 1983
Dupnik v. MacDougall 664 P.2d 189 Ariz. 1983
As we have on other occasions, , we believe that the economic impact of this decision should be prospective from the date of the issuance of this decision rather than from the date of the judgment of the trial court.
Arizona Lotus Corp. v. City of Phoenix 663 P.2d 1013 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Arizona Lotus Corp. v. City of Phoenix 663 P.2d 1013 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
DeWitt v. Magma Copper Co., 16 Ariz.App.
Juniel v. Juniel 623 P.2d 848 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
Juniel v. Juniel 623 P.2d 848 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1980
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
Appellant’s contention is based on our supreme court’s
Univar Corp. v. City of Phoenix 594 P.2d 86 Ariz. 1979
Univar Corp. v. City of Phoenix 594 P.2d 86 Ariz. 1979
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
State v. Gates 576 P.2d 1357 Ariz. 1978
State v. Gates 576 P.2d 1357 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
Cochise County v. Dandoy 567 P.2d 1182 Ariz. 1977
Cochise County v. Dandoy 567 P.2d 1182 Ariz. 1977
Department of Property Valuation v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District 551 P.2d 559 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976