Cited by

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

108 citing documents.

Department of Property Valuation v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District 551 P.2d 559 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Keeton v. Industrial Commission 554 P.2d 898 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Keeton v. Industrial Commission 554 P.2d 898 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
For example, see: , P.2d 392 (1953)
Adams v. Industrial Commission 547 P.2d 1089 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Adams v. Industrial Commission 547 P.2d 1089 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
See also: P.2d 770 (1963); , ; City of Tempe v. Del E. Webb Corporation, 14 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
As a , and the legislation passed thereafter which requires a yearly update in the valuation of real property in the state, the Board embarked on a three-year program designed to bring the value of all such property up to full cash value.
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
As a P. 2d 770 (1963) and the legislation passed thereafter which requires a yearly update in the valuation of real property in the state, the Board embarked on a three-year program designed to bring the value of all such property up to full cash value.
State v. Arizona Public Service Co. 540 P.2d 727 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
State v. Arizona Public Service Co. 540 P.2d 727 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Irrigation & Waterworks Supply v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. 540 P.2d 156 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Turf Irr. & W. Sup. v. Mt. States Tel. & Tel. Co. 540 P.2d 156 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Turf Irr. & W. Sup. v. Mt. States Tel. & Tel. Co. 540 P.2d 156 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Irrigation & Waterworks Supply v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. 540 P.2d 156 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
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
In 1963, , in which we took judicial notice that there was consistent and systematic undervaluation of property from county to county and from classification to classification, legislation was enacted requiring a reappraisal of all property at full cash value within the State.
Sherrill & La Follette v. County of Mohave 529 P.2d 1200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Sherrill & La Follette v. County of Mohave 529 P.2d 1200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
“(3) What is the full cash value of the Lands valued as grazing lands ?” (Emphasis original) The Supreme Court, , struck down the Arizona property taxing system as it then existed.
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
Jackson v. Pressnell 506 P.2d 261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Hollywood Continental Films v. Industrial Commission 506 P.2d 274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Hollywood Continental Films v. Industrial Commission 506 P.2d 274 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.
Begay v. Graham 501 P.2d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Begay v. Graham 501 P.2d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
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
A discussion of the fundamental changes wrought in the Arizona ad valo-rem property tax structure as a result of the Arizona Supreme Court’s 1963 , is set forth in this Court’s opinion in Burns v. Herberger, 17 Ariz.App.
Burns v. Herberger 498 P.2d 536 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Burns v. Herberger 498 P.2d 536 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
To determine whether the differences pointed out by the taxing authorities have validity under Arizona’s present statutory scheme of classification and valuation of real property for tax purposes
City of Tempe v. Del E. Webb Corporation 482 P.2d 477 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
City of Tempe v. Del E. Webb Corporation 482 P.2d 477 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 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.
Apache County v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. 476 P.2d 657 Ariz. 1970
Apache County v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. 476 P.2d 657 Ariz. 1970
Collier v. O’Neil, , ; Reichenberger v. Salt River, etc. District, , , , we quoted with approval from Yellowstone Pipe Line Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 138 Mont.
State Ex Rel. Berger v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN AND FOR COUNTY OF MARICOPA 476 P.2d 666 Ariz. 1970
State Ex Rel. Berger v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN AND FOR COUNTY OF MARICOPA 476 P.2d 666 Ariz. 1970
we said: “The principle that the decision will be made prospective only is not unknown.
Maricopa Cty. v. Cities & Towns of Avondale, Etc. 467 P.2d 949 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Maricopa Cty. v. Cities & Towns of Avondale, Etc. 467 P.2d 949 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
They also raise the defense of laches, and further urge that permitting a “retroactive” recovery would seriously jeopardize their financial condition
Camerena v. Department of Public Welfare 449 P.2d 957 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Camerena v. Department of Public Welfare 449 P.2d 957 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
and State v. Marana Plantations, Inc.
State Tax Commission v. Superior Court 450 P.2d 103 Ariz. 1969
State Tax Commission v. Superior Court 450 P.2d 103 Ariz. 1969
this court said: “It is agreed by both parties that the general rule of common law is, and always has been, that taxes voluntarily paid without protest, and not under duress, cannot be recovered by a taxpayer.” Later, at 406 , we said: “The rule at the common law was that taxes voluntarily paid could not be recovered.” [Citing Maricopa County v. Arizona Citrus Land Company, Supra.]
Industrial Commission v. Jordan 448 P.2d 895 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Industrial Commission v. Jordan 448 P.2d 895 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Bodco Building Corp. v. Arizona State Tax Commission 429 P.2d 476 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Bodco Building Corp. v. Arizona State Tax Commission 429 P.2d 476 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
This remedy is exclusive.” , : “The rule at the common law was that taxes voluntarily paid could not be recovered, (citation omitted) * * *.
Bade v. Drachman 417 P.2d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966