Navajo County v. Superior Court In and For Maricopa County
| Decision Date | 29 December 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 9781--PR,9781--PR |
| Parties | NAVAJO COUNTY, Mohave County, Apache County, Coconino County, and Yavapai County, Petitioners, v. SUPERIOR COURT of the State of Arizona IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF MARICOPA and Morris Rozar, Judge thereof; and Four Corners Pipe Line Company, a corporation, Respondents. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Gary K. Nelson, Atty. Gen., James D. Winter, Asst. Atty. Gen., John F. Taylor, Navajo Co. Atty., Leonard C. Langford, Mohave Co. Atty., J. Kendall Hansen, Apache Co. Atty., Michael J. Flournoy, Coconino Co. Atty., Thelton D. Beck, Yavapai Co. Atty., for petitioners.
Ryley, Carlock & Ralston, by George R. Carlock and Joseph P. Ralston and Francis J. Ryley, Phoenix, for respondent Four Corners Pipe Line Co.
The respondent, Four Corners Pipe Line Company, filed a petition for rehearing of our decision reported in 105 Ariz. 156, 461 P.2d 77 (filed Nov. 12, 1969). The petition is in effect a request for clarification of the term 'next fiscal year.' Respondent states:
'In the decision as to which this rehearing is sought, this Court held in effect that the term 'next fiscal year' in ARS 42--147C referred to the fiscal year following the fiscal year during which the case was finally disposed of an appeal if there was an appeal, or following the fiscal year in which the appeal period expired if there was no appeal.
'This respondent does not by this motion ask this Court to reverse that holding.'
We held in our original opinion that a supersedeas bond was not required under Rule 62(g), Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S., when an appeal is taken from the state or an agency thereof, and that it is perfected upon the filing of the notice thereof--that the perfection of the appeal had the effect of staying the execution until the return of the mandate from the appeal. The final judgment, where an appeal is taken, is upon the return of the mandate. Therefore, pursuant to § 42--147, subsec. C, where it is adjudged that taxpayer's property has been valued at a figure that is higher than its true cash value, and judgment for the recovery of the excess taxes has been entered, the taxpayer is entitled to have the funds for the payment of the judgment included in the county's budget for the next fiscal year following that in which the appeal period expires, if there is no appeal, or in which a judgment is entered following the return of the mandate after disposal of the appeal.
As ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maricopa County v. Barkley
...applies to counties. We agree. See Navajo County v. Superior Court, 105 Ariz. 156, 461 P.2d 77, opinion on denial of rehearing, 105 Ariz. 248, 462 P.2d 797 (1969). In response, Barkley and Estes point out that the county already has possession of the land and argue that they are entitled to......
-
Broadhead v. Arizona Bd. of Pardons and Paroles
...Ariz. 156, 461 P.2d 77 (1969) (stay of judgment ordering tax refunds and requiring that tax rolls be corrected) supplemented 105 Ariz. 248, 462 P.2d 797 (1969); Maricopa County v. Maricopa County Superior Court, 15 Ariz.App. 149, 486 P.2d 829 (1971) (stay of enforcement of summary judgment)......
-
Peabody Coal Co. v. Navajo County
...favor of a taxpayer in an action for a refund of taxes, the judgment becomes final upon the return of the mandate. Navajo County v. Superior Court, 105 Ariz. 248, 462 P.2d 797, supplementing 105 Ariz. 156, 461 P.2d 77 (1969). As of the date that the mandate of the Court of Appeals issued, 2......
-
Navajo County v. Four Corners Pipe Line Co., 1
...by the Arizona Supreme Court. Navajo County v. Superior Court, 105 Ariz. 156, 461 P.2d 77 (1969); Navajo County v. Superior Court, Maricopa County, 105 Ariz. 248, 462 P.2d 797 (1969). The judgment with which we are here concerned was the result of five independent property valuation tax app......