1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. P.3d
  4. 56 P.3d
  5. 56 P.3d 70 (2002)
 

MARICOPA COUNTY v. KINKO'S INC.

No. 1 CA-TX 01-0010.

56 P.3d 70 (2002)

203 Ariz. 496

MARICOPA COUNTY, Pima County, Pinal County, Apache County, Gila County, La Paz County, Mohave County And Santa Cruz County, bodies politic, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. KINKO'S INC., a Delaware corporation, Kinko's Inc., # 538; Kinko's Inc., # 544; Kinko's Inc., # 628; Kinko's Inc., # 1081; Kinko's Inc., # 2305; Kinko's Inc., # 2303; Kinko's Inc., # 2301; Kinko's Inc., # 2310; Kinko's Inc., # 2311; Kinko's Inc., # 2312; Kinko's Inc., # 2314; Kinko's Inc., 2313; Kinko's Inc., # 2309; Kinko's Inc., # 2306; Kinko's Inc., # 6711, Defendants-Appellants. Maricopa County, Pima County, Pinal County, Apache County, Gila County, La Paz County, Mohave County, And Santa Cruz County, bodies politic, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Garcia's, Garcia's Mexican dba Garcia's Mexican Restaurant, Garcia's Bank One dba Garcia's Bank One Ballpark and Eateries, Inc., Defendants-Appellants. Maricopa County, Pima County, Pinal County, Apache County, Gila County, La Paz County, Mohave County And Santa Cruz County, bodies politic, Plaintiffs-Appellees, Harkins Amusement Enterprises, Inc., a/k/a/ Harkins Amusements; Harkins Bell Towne Centre; Harkins Theatres, Inc., a/k/a/ Harkins Theatres; Poca Fiesta Theatre; Harkins Paradise Cinemas, L.L.C. a/k/a Harkins Paradise Cinemas; Harkins Inc. # 6; Harkins CT Theatres; Bell Tower # 8; Cornerstone Theatre # 17; Fiesta 5 Theatre and Harkins Arcadia # 8, collectively, Defendants-Appellants.

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

October 24, 2002.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Helm & Kyle, Ltd. By Roberta S. Livesay, Tempe, Special Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Fennemore Craig, P.C. By Paul J. Mooney, Jim L. Wright, Phoenix, Attorneys for Defendants-Appellants Kinko's Inc.

Donald P. Roelke, Phoenix, Attorney for Defendants-Appellants Garcia's.

David N. Farren, Phoenix, Attorney for Defendants-Appellants Harkins.

OPINION

GEMMILL, Judge.

¶ 1 Appellants are companies that own personal property and do business in Arizona at multiple locations. The tax court entered summary judgment against the appellants and in favor of eight plaintiff counties based on the conclusion that the Arizona Constitution allows the legislature to exempt from taxation a maximum of $50,000 per year of personal property of a taxpayer used for agricultural...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases