Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Business Realty of Arizona, Inc. v. Maricopa County, 892 P.2d 1340.

46 citing documents.

Mesquite v. Ador Ariz. 2024
Mesquite v. Ador Ariz. 2024
(quoting Fair Market Value, Black’s Law Dictionary (6th ed. 1990)).
Neptune Swimming Foundation v. City of Scottsdale Ariz. 2024
Neptune Swimming Foundation v. City of Scottsdale Ariz. 2024
Realty of Ariz., (defining fair market value as “that ‘amount at which property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or sell and both having reasonable knowledge of the relevant facts’” (quoting Fair Market Value, Black’s Law Dictionary (6th ed. 1990)))
Mesquite v. Ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Mesquite v. Ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Maricopa v. Hon. viola/el Rancho Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Maricopa v. Hon. viola/el Rancho Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Transwestern v. Ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Transwestern v. Ador Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Realty of Ariz., (quoting Fair Market Value, Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed. 1990)).
France v. gila/arizona Counties Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
France v. gila/arizona Counties Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Realty of Az., and Hayes v. Cont’l Ins., ).
Brenda D. v. Dep't of Child Safety 410 P.3d 419 Ariz. 2018
Brenda D. v. Dep't of Child Safety 410 P.3d 419 Ariz. 2018
Realty of Ariz., see also Hayes v. Cont’l Ins., (“[I]f possible we construe statutes to avoid unnecessary resolution of constitutional issues.”).
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle 379 P.3d 197 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle 379 P.3d 197 Ariz. 2016
Realty of Arizona, , 559, (noting that courts should try to interpret statutes in a way that avoids constitutional questions if possible).
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle Ariz. 2016
Realty of Arizona, (noting that courts should try to interpret statutes in a way that avoids constitutional questions if possible).
State v. Panos 366 P.3d 1006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Panos 366 P.3d 1006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
“[W]e have an obligation to interpret statutes so as to uphold their constitutionality, where possible,” (citing Business Realty of Ariz., ), and we strongly presume a statute to be constitutional, ().
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
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Questar Southern Trails Pipeline Co. 161 P.3d 620 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Questar Southern Trails Pipeline Co. 161 P.3d 620 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
¶ 16 Taxpayer also relies on Business Realty of Arizona, , and SFPP, L.P.
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District 126 P.3d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District 126 P.3d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
The taxation of utility companies marks a rare instance in which the Arizona Legislature has “used its power to prescribe an alternative to the fair market value concept of full cash value for tax valuation purposes.” Business Realty of Ariz., , 554 & n. 4, , 1343 & n. 4 (1995) (distinguishing between valuations of shopping centers and other entities, including utilities).
SFPP, L.P. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 108 P.3d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
SFPP, L.P. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 108 P.3d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
¶ 9 Property in Arizona is valued for property tax purposes at its “full cash value.” See Business Realty of Ariz.
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
See also Business Realty of Ariz., , ("The Arizona Legislature has rarely used its power to prescribe an alternative to the fair market value concept of full cash value for tax valuation purposes.").
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
Kuehn v. Stanley, Charter Funding, First Magnus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Kuehn v. Stanley, Charter Funding, First Magnus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Realty of Ariz., (“The appraisal of real estate is an art, not a science.
TANQUE VERDE UNIFIED SCHOOL v. Bernini 76 P.3d 874 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
TANQUE VERDE UNIFIED SCHOOL v. Bernini 76 P.3d 874 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Realty of Ariz., , (for tax purposes, Arizona assesses property at full cash value, which is generally fair market value); Swanson v. Safeco Title Ins.
University Medical Center Corp. v. Department of Revenue 36 P.3d 1217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
University Medical Center Corp. v. Department of Revenue 36 P.3d 1217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Realty of Ariz., , (stating that statute must be construed, if possible, in a way that renders it constitutional); ¶5 , (same).
London Bridge Resort, Inc. v. Mohave County 27 P.3d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
London Bridge Resort, Inc. v. Mohave County 27 P.3d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Realty of Arizona, -54 , -43 (1995); cf. A.R.S.
Kotterman v. Killian 972 P.2d 606 Ariz. 1999
Kotterman v. Killian 972 P.2d 606 Ariz. 1999
Our dissenting colleague has himself noted that “[tjhis court has properly been skeptical of some approaches to divining legislative intent.”
San Carlos Apache Tribe v. Superior Court 972 P.2d 179 Ariz. 1999
San Carlos Apache Tribe v. Superior Court 972 P.2d 179 Ariz. 1999
State v. Getz 944 P.2d 503 Ariz. 1997
State v. Getz 944 P.2d 503 Ariz. 1997
Business Realty of Arizona