Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Board of Supervisors, 127 P. 727.

30 citing documents.

Arizona Corp. Commission v. State Ex Rel. Woods 830 P.2d 807 Ariz. 1992
Arizona Corp. Commission v. State Ex Rel. Woods 830 P.2d 807 Ariz. 1992
For this general proposition, , 127 P. 727 (1912), a case not involving the Commission at all but dealing with the power of a board of equalization — a statutorily created entity.
Boyce v. City of Scottsdale 756 P.2d 934 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Boyce v. City of Scottsdale 756 P.2d 934 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
of Supervisors, , 127 P. 727 (1912), the Arizona Supreme Court addressed the power of a county board of supervisors, sitting as a board of equalization, to reassess an earlier tax assessment.
Ayala v. Hill 664 P.2d 238 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Ayala v. Hill 664 P.2d 238 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
229 P. 99 (1924); , 188 P. 271 (1920); , 127 P. 727 (1912).
Department of Property Valuation v. Yuma County Board of Supervisors 447 P.2d 545 Ariz. 1968
Department of Property Valuation v. Yuma County Board of Supervisors 447 P.2d 545 Ariz. 1968
127 P. 727 , we said: “The duty to extend, or cause to be extended, on the assessment-roll, the equalized values of all property of their county is clearly enjoined as a duty resulting from their office upon the board of supervisors and its clerk.
Cochise County v. Southern Pacific Company 409 P.2d 549 Ariz. 1966
Cochise County v. Southern Pacific Company 409 P.2d 549 Ariz. 1966
State v. Board of Supervisors , 127 P. 727 ; , .
Brown v. City of Phoenix 272 P.2d 358 Ariz. 1954
Brown v. City of Phoenix 272 P.2d 358 Ariz. 1954
Ordinarily this coercive remedy is invoked to compel the doing of a purely ministerial act; e. g., , ; , 127 P. 727 ; , , however within certain well-defined limitations the writ will also issue where there has been an abuse of discretion.
Peters v. Frye 223 P.2d 176 Ariz. 1950
Peters v. Frye 223 P.2d 176 Ariz. 1950
Ordinarily this coercive remedy is invoked to compel the doing of a purely ministerial act; , ; , 127 P. 727 ; , , however within certain well-defined limitations the writ will also issue where there has been an abuse of discretion.
State v. Airesearch Mfg. Co. 206 P.2d 562 Ariz. 1949
State v. Airesearch Mfg. Co. 206 P.2d 562 Ariz. 1949
Magma Copper Co. v. Arizona State Tax Commission, supra; , 127 P. 727 ; People v. Board of Supervisors of Schenectady County, 35 Barb., N. Y., 408.
Magma Copper Co. v. Arizona State Tax Commission 191 P.2d 169 Ariz. 1948
Magma Copper Co. v. Arizona State Tax Commission 191 P.2d 169 Ariz. 1948
127 P. 727 ; People v. Supervisors of Schenectady, 35 Barb., N.Y., 408; People ex rel.
Martin v. Whiting 181 P.2d 819 Ariz. 1947
Martin v. Whiting 181 P.2d 819 Ariz. 1947
Section 28-201, A.C.A.1939; , 127 P. 727 .
Commercial Life Ins. Co. v. Wright 166 P.2d 943 Ariz. 1946
Commercial Life Ins. Co. v. Wright 166 P.2d 943 Ariz. 1946
Peters v. Berryman 245 P. 282 Ariz. 1926
Peters v. Berryman 245 P. 282 Ariz. 1926
Hunt v. Schilling 229 P. 99 Ariz. 1924
Hunt v. Schilling 229 P. 99 Ariz. 1924
Johnson v. Betts 188 P. 271 Ariz. 1920
Johnson v. Betts 188 P. 271 Ariz. 1920
In accordance with this principle, , 127 Pac.
Arizona Copper Co. v. State ex rel. Webster 137 P. 417 Ariz. 1913
Arizona Copper Co. v. State ex rel. Webster 137 P. 417 Ariz. 1913