Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Arizona State Tax Commission v. Frank Harmonson Co. Metal Products, 163 P.2d 667.

25 citing documents.

Knight v. Fontes Ariz. 2025
Knight v. Fontes Ariz. 2025
Stated another way, “[e]qual protection guarantees are satisfied ‘if all persons in a class are treated alike.’” ¶ 16 (App. 2014) (quoting Ariz. State Tax Comm’n v. Frank Harmonson Co. Metal Prods., ).
Craven v. Huppenthal 338 P.3d 324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Craven v. Huppenthal 338 P.3d 324 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶16 Equal protection guarantees are satisfied “if all persons in a class are treated alike.” Ariz. State Tax Comm’n v. Frank Harmonson Co. Metal Prods., see also Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Comty.
Watahomigie v. BD. OF WATER QUALITY APP. 887 P.2d 550 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Watahomigie v. BD. OF WATER QUALITY APP. 887 P.2d 550 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Baseline Liquors v. Circle K Corp., , 219 n. 3, , 42 n. 3 (App.), cert.
Watahomigie v. Arizona Board of Water Quality Appeals 887 P.2d 550 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Watahomigie v. Arizona Board of Water Quality Appeals 887 P.2d 550 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Arizona State Tax Comm’n v. Frank Harmonson Co. Metal Prods., , Baseline Liquors v. Circle K Corp., , 219 n. 3, , 42 n. 3 (App.), cert.
State Ex Rel. Babbitt v. Pickrell 545 P.2d 936 Ariz. 1976
State Ex Rel. Babbitt v. Pickrell 545 P.2d 936 Ariz. 1976
v. Frank Harmonson Co. Metal Products, at 459 , at 670 (1945).
City of Mesa v. Home Builders Ass'n of Central Arizona, Inc. 523 P.2d 57 Ariz. 1974
City of Mesa v. Home Builders Ass'n of Central Arizona, Inc. 523 P.2d 57 Ariz. 1974
Watkins Cigarette Service, Inc. v. Arizona State Tax Commission 517 P.2d 1089 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Watkins Cigarette Service, Inc. v. Arizona State Tax Commission 517 P.2d 1089 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
v. Frank Harmonson Co., , ; , ; (2) that the Act makes the tax the direct obligation of the retailer and not that of the consumer; (3) that there is no statutory authority for the retailer attempting to constitute himself a mere collector or agent of the state for the purpose of receiving
Tucson Transit Authority, Inc. v. Nelson 485 P.2d 816 Ariz. 1971
Tucson Transit Authority, Inc. v. Nelson 485 P.2d 816 Ariz. 1971
A tax exemption cannot be implied, , and laws exempting property from taxation are to be strictly construed; the presumption being against such exemption.
J. H. Welsh & Son Contracting Co. v. Arizona State Tax Commission 420 P.2d 970 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
J. H. Welsh & Son Contracting Co. v. Arizona State Tax Commission 420 P.2d 970 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Arizona State Tax Com'n v. Garrett Corporation 291 P.2d 208 Ariz. 1955
Arizona State Tax Com'n v. Garrett Corporation 291 P.2d 208 Ariz. 1955
684 ; Pratt-Gilbert Hardware Co. v. O’Neil, , , on rehearing, , ; , ; , ; , .
State Tax Commission v. Quebedeaux Chevrolet 226 P.2d 549 Ariz. 1951
State Tax Commission v. Quebedeaux Chevrolet 226 P.2d 549 Ariz. 1951
v. Frank Harmonson Co., , ; , ; (2) that the Act makes the ■ tax the direct obligation of the retailer and not that of the consumer; (3) that there is no statutory authority for the retailer attempting to constitute himself a mere collector or agent of the state for the purpose of receivi
Duhame v. State Tax Commission 179 P.2d 252 Ariz. 1947
Duhame v. State Tax Commission 179 P.2d 252 Ariz. 1947
v. Frank Harmonson, Ariz., , was decided.
Pratt-Gilbert Hardware Co. v. O'Neil 173 P.2d 91 Ariz. 1946