DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Valencia Energy Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue, 959 P.2d 1256.

112 citing documents.

  • Motorola, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 993 P.2d 1101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
    alifying “sales.” We rejected the contractor’s arguments, and concluded that the underlying construction contract was not a “contract to sell property” under the town ordinances and based on the Arizona Supreme Court’s reasoning in Du-hame v. State Tax Comm’n, -79 , -59 (1947), overruled in part on other grounds by Valencia Energy Co. v. Arizona Dep’t of Revenue
  • La Paz County v. Upton 986 P.2d 252 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • Jennings v. Woods 982 P.2d 274 Ariz. 1999
  • Jennings v. Woods 982 P.2d 274 Ariz. 1999
    See Knoell Bros. Constr., , , (“In statutory construction, it is a general rule that where the same words or phrases appear in the same statute, they will be given a generally accepted and consistent meaning unless the legislative intent is clearly expressed to the contrary.”) (citing Baker v. Salomon, 31 Ill.App.3d 278 , 33
  • City of Tucson v. Whiteco Metrocom, Inc. 983 P.2d 759 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
  • City of Tucson v. Whiteco Metrocom, Inc. 983 P.2d 759 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
    ¶ 22 The elements of equitable estoppel are: “(1) the party to be estopped commits acts inconsistent with a position it later adopts; (2) reliance by the other party; and (3) injury to the latter resulting from the former’s repudiation of its prior conduct.” Valencia Energy Co. v. Arizona Dep’t of Revenue
  • Open Primary Elections Now v. Bayless 969 P.2d 649 Ariz. 1998
  • Open Primary Elections Now v. Bayless 969 P.2d 649 Ariz. 1998
    It is rare that satisfactory evidence of an absolute, unequivocal, and formal state action will be found unless it is in writing.” Valencia Energy Co. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue
  • Magellan South Mountain Ltd. Partnership v. Maricopa County 968 P.2d 103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • Magellan South Mountain Ltd. Partnership v. Maricopa County 968 P.2d 103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
    Disapproved in part on other grounds, Valencia Energy Co. v. Arizona Dep’t of Revenue, , , 270 Ariz. Adv.
  • Pingitore v. Town of Cave Creek 981 P.2d 129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • Pingitore v. Town of Cave Creek 981 P.2d 129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
    ¶24 The supreme court decision in Valencia Energy v. Arizona Dep’t of Revenue, , provides the analytical framework.