Arizona State Tax Commission v. Ensign
| Decision Date | 14 May 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 5609,5609 |
| Citation | 75 Ariz. 376,257 P.2d 392 |
| Parties | ARIZONA STATE TAX COMMISSION et al. v. ENSIGN et al. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Ross F. Jones, Atty. Gen., and John M. McGowan, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellants.
Snell & Wilmer, by Edward Jacobson and Perry M. Ling, of Phoenix, for appellees.
Amici Curiae: Jennings, Strouss, Salmon & Trask, Ryley, Carlock & Ralston, Evans, Hull, Kitchel & Jenckes, Fennemore, Craig, Allen & Bledsoe, Kramer, Morrison, Roche & Perry, Lewis, Roca & Scoville, Moeur & Moeur and Edwin D. Green, all of Phoenix.
The appellees' motion for rehearing, supported by their own brief and that of amici curiae, presents but little in the form of new cases, reasoning, or logic that was not considered in drafting the original opinion. We see no occasion to depart from our previous decision.
However, since the decision heretofore rendered has no provision limiting its application to future transactions, the decision will operate retrospectively unless we expressly order otherwise. There is ample precedent in this jurisdiction that in tax matters--when a previous decision is overruled--the new decision be given prospective effect only. See, O'Malley v. Sims, 51 Ariz. 155, 75 P.2d 50, 53, 115 A.L.R. 634; Duhame v. State Tax Commission, 65 Ariz. 268, 179 P.2d 252, 259, 171 A.L.R. 684.
In fairness to the parties who relied upon the previous holding of this court--in the Pratt-Gilbert case--that transactions of the character here involved were nontaxable under the Excise Revenue Act of 1935, as amended, we now hold that our decision in the instant case be given prospective effect only and it is so ordered.
The motion for rehearing is denied.
STANFORD, C. J., PHELPS and LA PRADE, JJ., and FARLEY, Superior Court Judge, concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schettler v. County of Santa Clara
...an overruling decision retroactively or prospectively turns on considerations of fairness and public policy (Arizona State Tax Commission v. Ensign (1953) 75 Ariz. 376, 257 P.2d 392; State v. O'Neil (1910) 126 N.W. 454, 455, 147 Iowa 513; People v. Graves (1934) 242 App.Div. 128, 273 N.Y.S.......
-
Simpson v. Union Oil Company of California
...be prospective in other cases. Duhame v. State Tax Comm., 65 Ariz. 268, 179 P.2d 252, 171 A.L.R. 684 (1947); Arizona State Tax Comm. v. Ensign, 75 Ariz. 376, 257 P.2d 392 (1953). 5 Arizona State Tax Comm'n v. Ensign, 75 Ariz. 376, 257 P.2d 392 (1953) tax; Duhame v. State Tax Comm., 65 Ariz.......
-
National Ass'n of Broadcasters v. F. C. C.
...law while it is announced in the same opinion that the law will be changed as to subsequent cases. See, e. g., Arizona Tax Comm'n v. Ensign, 75 Ariz. 376, 257 P.2d 392 (1943); Spanel v. Mounds View School Dist. No. 621, 264 Minn. 279, 118 N.W.2d 795 (1962); Sunburst Oil & Refining Co. v. Gr......
-
Chevron Chemical Co. v. Superior Court, s. 15617-S
...opinion operates retroactively as well as prospectively, O'Malley v. Sims, 51 Ariz. 155, 75 P.2d 50 (1938); Arizona State Tax Comm. v. Ensign, 75 Ariz. 376, 257 P.2d 392 (1953); Hollywood Continental Films v. Industrial Commission, 19 Ariz.App. 234, 506 P.2d 274 (1973). There is, then, a pr......