Navajo County v. Peabody Coal Co.

• Decision Date: 04 March 1975
• Docket Number: No. 1,CA-CIV,1
• Citation: Navajo County v. Peabody Coal Co., 532 P.2d 201, 23 Ariz.App. 259 (Ariz. App. 1975)
• Parties: NAVAJO COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Arizona, Raymond H. Randall, Individually and as County Treasurer of Navajo County; William M. Smith, M. M. 'Mike' O'Haco, Max E. Taylor, Individually and as members of the Board of Supervisors of Navajo County, Arizona, Appellants, v. PEABODY COAL COMPANY, a corporation, Appellees. 2368.
• Court: Arizona Court of Appeals

Page 201

532 P.2d 201

23 Ariz.App. 259

NAVAJO COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Arizona, Raymond H. Randall, Individually and as County Treasurer of Navajo County; William M. Smith, M. M. 'Mike' O'Haco, Max E. Taylor, Individually and as members of the Board of Supervisors of Navajo County, Arizona, Appellants, v. PEABODY COAL COMPANY, a corporation, Appellees.

No. 1 CA-CIV 2368.

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1, Department A.

March 4, 1975.

Mary Z. Chandler, James D. Winter, Asst. Attys. Gen., Phoenix, for appellant.

Philip E. von Ammon, Donald R. Gilbert, Fennemore, Craig, von Ammon & Udall, Phoenix, for appellee.

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION

OGG, Presiding Judge.

Appellants, in their motion for rehearing, have urged that this Court further clarify the original decision in the case because of the far-reaching tax implications. Appellants assert that our decision could be interpreted to strike down Navajo County's entire assessment on all property of Peabody Coal Company located within the County upon the Navajo and Hopi Indian Reservations. The issue of Navajo County's authority to tax the personal property and improvements of Peabody Coal Company was never presented to this Court or the Superior Court of Navajo County. The appellants now admit that it was error when they failed to separate the two concepts of taxing Peabody's leasehold interest in the producing mines and the taxing of Peabody's improvements and personal property.

To avoid future misinterpretation of our decision, the limited holding in this case as applied to this fact situation only prohibits Navajo County from assessing taxes on Peabody's leasehold interest in the producing mines that are located on the Navajo and Hopi Indian Reservations. There is nothing in this opinion that should be interpreted to prevent ...