Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Crane Co. v. Arizona State Tax Commission, 163 P.2d 656.

60 citing documents.

Az Public Integrity v. Adrian Fontes Ariz. 2020
Az Public Integrity v. Adrian Fontes Ariz. 2020
–36 (App. 1994) (quoting Crane Co. v. Ariz. State Tax Comm’n, ).
Boruch v. State ex rel. Halikowski 399 P.3d 686 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Boruch v. State ex rel. Halikowski 399 P.3d 686 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
See Crane Co. v. Ariz. State Tax Comm’n, , (court empowered to grant injunction despite statutory predecessor to A.R.S.
Church of the Isaiah 58 Project of Arizona, Inc. v. La Paz County 314 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Church of the Isaiah 58 Project of Arizona, Inc. v. La Paz County 314 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
¶ 19 The Arizona Supreme Court has recognized a narrow exception to the statutory prohibition against injunctive relief when the challenged taxes have been levied without semblance of authority “and resulting injury cannot be adequately provided by proceedings at law.” Crane Co. v. Ariz. State *465 Tax Comm’n, , overruled in part on other grounds by Valencia Energy Co. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, , see also Santa Fe Trail Transp.
Valencia Energy Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 959 P.2d 1256 Ariz. 1998
Valencia Energy Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 959 P.2d 1256 Ariz. 1998
On the estoppel issue, the court held that Ariz. Const, art. IX, § 1, Crane Co. v. Arizona State Tax Comm’n, , and Duhame v. State Tax Comm’n, , prevent the Department from being equitably estopped by its incorrect representations that no tax was applicable.
General Motors Corp. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 938 P.2d 481 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
General Motors Corp. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 938 P.2d 481 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
overruled on other grounds, Duhame v. State Tax Comm’n, , in which our supreme court had proscribed estoppel on constitutional grounds.
Valencia Energy Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 938 P.2d 474 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Valencia Energy Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 938 P.2d 474 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
In PCS we held that Ariz. Const. Art. 9, section 1, Crane Co. v. Arizona State Tax Comm’n, , overruled on other grounds, Duhame v. State Tax Comm’n, , and Duhame v. State Tax Comm’n, supra, prevent DOR from being equitably estopped by its incorrect representations that the tax did not apply.
State Ex Rel. Department of Revenue v. Driggs 938 P.2d 469 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State Ex Rel. Department of Revenue v. Driggs 938 P.2d 469 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
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
Crane Co. v. Arizona State Tax Comm’n, , overruled on other grounds, Duhame v. State Tax Comm’n, , revolved around the fact that the State Tax Commission had adopted a rule excepting certain items sold to contractors from taxation.
Berry v. Foster 883 P.2d 470 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Berry v. Foster 883 P.2d 470 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
“While it is true that courts will not interfere by injunction where officers are acting in the execution of a public statute, they may be enjoined from acts which are beyond their power.” Crane Co. v. *236 Arizona State Tax Comm’n
Tucson Electric Power Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 851 P.2d 132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Tucson Electric Power Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 851 P.2d 132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Ass'n, , Duhame v. State Tax Comm’n, , , , Knoell Brothers Construction
Knoell Bros. Const. v. State, Dept. of Rev. 644 P.2d 905 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Knoell Bros. Const. v. State, Dept. of Rev. 644 P.2d 905 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
is dispositive of this argument.
Moore v. Industrial Commission 538 P.2d 411 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Moore v. Industrial Commission 538 P.2d 411 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
“[A]n unconstitutional statute is in reality no law and is wholly void, and is as inoperative as if it had never been passed.” See 16 C.J.S.
Williams v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN & FOR CTY. OF PIMA, ETC. 494 P.2d 26 Ariz. 1972
Williams v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN & FOR CTY. OF PIMA, ETC. 494 P.2d 26 Ariz. 1972
36 , 156 P. 658 .” , , 163 A.L.R.
Skaggs Drug Center, Inc. v. United States Time Corp. 420 P.2d 177 Ariz. 1966
Skaggs Drug Center, Inc. v. United States Time Corp. 420 P.2d 177 Ariz. 1966
673 (1946) ; , , 4 A.L.R.2d 735 (1948); , , 163 A.L.R.
Drachman v. Jay 417 P.2d 704 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Drachman v. Jay 417 P.2d 704 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Southern Pacific Company v. Cochise County 377 P.2d 770 Ariz. 1963
Southern Pacific Company v. Cochise County 377 P.2d 770 Ariz. 1963
Board of Regents of the Universities & State College v. City of Tempe 356 P.2d 399 Ariz. 1960
Board of Regents of the Universities & State College v. City of Tempe 356 P.2d 399 Ariz. 1960
Thrift Hardware & , , 22 A.L.R.2d 810 ; , , 163 A.L.R.
State Tax Commission v. Wallapai Brick & Clay Products, Inc. 330 P.2d 988 Ariz. 1958
State Tax Commission v. Wallapai Brick & Clay Products, Inc. 330 P.2d 988 Ariz. 1958
This court has previously stated that: “Those engaged in mining, timbering, etc., are not taxable on a retail sale basis.” , , 163 A.L.R.
McCluskey v. Sparks 291 P.2d 791 Ariz. 1955
McCluskey v. Sparks 291 P.2d 791 Ariz. 1955
State v. Jacobi 239 P.2d 1081 Ariz. 1952
State v. Jacobi 239 P.2d 1081 Ariz. 1952
State Ex Rel. Lane v. Superior Court 236 P.2d 461 Ariz. 1951
State Ex Rel. Lane v. Superior Court 236 P.2d 461 Ariz. 1951
If there is some semblance of authority for the imposition of such tax plaintiff’s remedy is to pay the tax under protest, then test its validity by suing for recovery of the amount so paid under said Section 73-841.” , , 163 A.L.R.
State Tax Commission v. Quebedeaux Chevrolet 226 P.2d 549 Ariz. 1951
State Tax Commission v. Quebedeaux Chevrolet 226 P.2d 549 Ariz. 1951
Southwest Lumber Mills, Inc. v. Employment Security Commission 182 P.2d 83 Ariz. 1947
Southwest Lumber Mills, Inc. v. Employment Security Commission 182 P.2d 83 Ariz. 1947
It is conceded, and it is clear from a long line of authorities of which the latest from Arizona is Crane Co. v. Arizona Tax Comm., Ariz., , 163 A.L.R.
Murphy v. State 181 P.2d 336 Ariz. 1947
Murphy v. State 181 P.2d 336 Ariz. 1947
See Crane Co. v. Tax Comm., Ariz., , 163 A.L.R.
Duhame v. State Tax Commission 179 P.2d 252 Ariz. 1947
Duhame v. State Tax Commission 179 P.2d 252 Ariz. 1947