Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Wilderness World, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 895 P.2d 108.

134 citing documents.

State ex rel. Arizona Department of Revenue v. Capitol Castings, Inc. 69 P.3d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State ex rel. Arizona Department of Revenue v. Capitol Castings, Inc. 69 P.3d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Further, both of the cases *264 cited by the court in People’s Choice for the proposition that ambiguities in tax statutes are to be resolved in favor of the taxpayer, Wilderness World, , , 509 ¶ 10, applied that rule only in determining whether the statute in question extended to the particular taxpayers’ activities.
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
Wilderness World, Inc. v. Dep’t of Revenue
People's Choice TV Corp. v. City of Tucson 46 P.3d 412 Ariz. 2002
People's Choice TV Corp. v. City of Tucson 46 P.3d 412 Ariz. 2002
Wilderness World, Inc. v. Arizona Dep’t of Revenue, 182 Ariz. 196, 199, Cable Plus Co. v. Arizona Dep’t of Revenue
Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. State 44 P.3d 1006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. State 44 P.3d 1006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
357 , 3 L.Ed.2d 421 (1959), and Department of Revenue v. Moki Mac River Expeditions, Inc., , overruled on other grounds by Wilderness World, , for the proposition that a state’s tax on interstate commerce must be deemed externally consistent unless the aggrieved taxpayer establishes that “a multiple tax burden actually exists.” ADOR asserts that the external consistency test’s objective “is to determine whether the activity being taxed
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Blue Line Distributing, Inc. 43 P.3d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Blue Line Distributing, Inc. 43 P.3d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Haralson v. Fisher Surveying, Inc. 31 P.3d 114 Ariz. 2001
Criticized Haralson v. Fisher Surveying, Inc. 31 P.3d 114 Ariz. 2001
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Canyoneers, Inc. 23 P.3d 684 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Canyoneers, Inc. 23 P.3d 684 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Wilderness World Inc. v. Dep’t of Revenue, -58 , -84 (App.1993), aff'd in part, rev’d in part on other grounds
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Care Computer Systems, Inc. 4 P.3d 469 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Care Computer Systems, Inc. 4 P.3d 469 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Overruling recognized in Department of Revenue v. Moki Mac River Expeditions, Inc., -74 , -79 (1989), disapproved in part on other grounds, Wilderness World
Herman v. City of Tucson 4 P.3d 973 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Herman v. City of Tucson 4 P.3d 973 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Wilderness World, Inc. v. Dep’t of Revenue, , (under doctrine of ejusdem generis, general words following enumeration of particular classes of persons or things should be construed as applicable only to persons or things of same general nature or class as those enumerated); Ariz. Adv
State v. Soto-Perez 968 P.2d 1051 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
State v. Soto-Perez 968 P.2d 1051 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
“ ‘[W]here general words follow the enumeration of particular classes of persons or things, the general words should be construed as applicable only to persons or things of the same general nature or class of those enumerated.’ ” Wilderness World, Inc. v. Arizona Dep’t of Revenue, , rev’d in part on other grounds, , -54
Renalwest L.C. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 943 P.2d 769 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Renalwest L.C. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 943 P.2d 769 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Smith's Food & Drug Centers, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 935 P.2d 906 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Smith's Food & Drug Centers, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 935 P.2d 906 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State Ex Rel. Arizona Department of Revenue v. Phoenix Lodge No. 708, Loyal Order of Moose, Inc. 928 P.2d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State Ex Rel. Arizona Department of Revenue v. Phoenix Lodge No. 708, Loyal Order of Moose, Inc. 928 P.2d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Tallent v. National General Insurance 915 P.2d 665 Ariz. 1996
Tallent v. National General Insurance 915 P.2d 665 Ariz. 1996
See Wilderness World, , Gary Outdoor Advertising Co. v. Sun Lodge, Inc., , Libra Group
Abrams Airborne Manufacturing, Inc. v. State Department of Revenue 917 P.2d 1236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Abrams Airborne Manufacturing, Inc. v. State Department of Revenue 917 P.2d 1236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Wilderness World, Inc. v. Arizona Dep’t of Revenue
PCS, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 925 P.2d 680 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
PCS, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 925 P.2d 680 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Our supreme court recently stated in Wilderness World, Inc. v. Arizona Dep’t of Revenue, , : The presumption in civil cases is that opinions will operate retroactively.
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
Wilderness World, , Fain Land & -97 , -52 (1990).