Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1/19/1999

Airport Properties v. Maricopa County

Citations

985 P.2d 574
195 Ariz. 89
287 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 26
1999 Ariz. App. LEXIS 9

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

stating that when something is “subject to” an influence or action, “it does not communicate the idea that it continuously and actively is affected by that influence or action”
rejecting the argument that the Legislature has a positive duty to tax all non-constitutionally exempt property unless the constitution requires it not to
confirming “the idea that something is ‘subject to’ an influence or action does not communicate the idea that it is continuously and actively affected by that influence or action”
“Arizona courts have frequently resorted to recognized, authoritative dictionaries of the English language on questions of the ordinary meanings of words contained in statutory provisions.”
“For tax purposes, then, an ‘exemption’ implies a discrete exception to the general rule of taxation, carved out of a category or categories that would otherwise be subject to uniform taxation.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Ehrlich, Voss, Patterson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

16 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

29 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.