Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 12
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-170 (2026)

Decisions; judgment; appeal

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. The tax court, except when it is sitting as a small claims tax court, shall render its decision in writing and, on its own motion or at the request of a party, include a concise statement of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached by the court.

B. In its judgment the court shall grant the relief, invoke the remedies and issue any orders which are appropriate to its decision.

C. The judgment is final unless within thirty days after the entry of the judgment a notice of appeal is filed with the clerk of the tax court. The appeal shall be heard by a department of division 1 of the court of appeals designated by the chief judge of the division pursuant to section 12-120.04.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1990–2025 · leading case: Devenir Assocs. v. City of Phoenix, 821 P.2d 161 (Ariz. 1991).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Devenir Assocs. v. City of Phoenix, 821 P.2d 161 (Ariz. 1991). · cites it 18× “It concluded that the provisions of A.R.S. § 12-170 do not allow for a different result.”
People of Faith, Inc. v. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 791 P.2d 369 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 23× “In its reply brief, the taxpayer argues that A.R.S. § 12-170 provides independent statutory authorization for an appeal from an interlocutory judgment of the tax court.”
People's Choice TV Corp. v. City of Tucson, 46 P.3d 412 (Ariz. 2002). · cites it 2× “Both parties moved for summary judgment, and the tax court granted judgment in favor of PCTV, finding that § 42-6004 precluded the City’s imposition of “transaction privilege taxes on any category of income of interstate telecommunications services.”
Sempre Ltd. P'ship v. Maricopa Cnty., 235 P.3d 259 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “¶ 4 After briefing and oral argument, the tax court found in favor of the County and granted its motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.”
Eurofresh, Inc. v. Graham Cnty., 187 P.3d 530 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “We have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-170(C) and 12-2101(B) (2003).”
Hormel v. Maricopa Cnty., 232 P.3d 768 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “The court adopted its previous findings of fact and conclusions of law, denied Taxpayer’s motion for summary judgment with respect to tax years 2001 through 2003, and denied the County’s cross-motion for summary judgment with respect to tax year 2004.”
Hayden Partners Ltd. P'ship v. Maricopa Cnty., 800 P.2d 987 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “1989), and the appeal is assigned to Department T, the tax department of this court, pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-170(C) (Supp.1989). CLASSIFICATION OF UNSOLD AND PARTIALLY COMPLETED RESIDENCES We first consider the classification of the five lots in Villa Antano that contained…”
Stearns v. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 131 P.3d 1063 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “The parties filed a joint stipulation of facts and cross-motions for summary judgment.”
Pope v. Phoenix (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 9× “” A.R.S. § 12-170(C). ¶8 As the City notes, ARCAP 9(a) contemplates that the deadline to appeal can permissibly be varied, setting a baseline deadline of 30 days after entry of judgment “unless the law provides a different time.”
Transwestern v. Ador (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “The Department timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-170(C) and -2101(A)(1). 1 The table's values are allocated to Arizona using each valuer's allocation factor.”
Bsi v. Adot (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2× “Accordingly, as the supreme court had directed, the tax court construed the statutory language in favor of the taxpayer and ruled in favor of BSI.”
Knight v. Fontes (Ariz. 2025). · cites it 2× “FONTES Opinion of the Court court, see A.R.S. § 12-170(C), and the industrial commission, see A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-170(A) — 1 case
Devenir Assocs. v. City of Phoenix, 821 P.2d 161 (Ariz. 1991). “It concluded that the provisions of A.R.S. § 12-170 do not allow for a different result.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-170(B) — 1 case
Devenir Assocs. v. City of Phoenix, 821 P.2d 161 (Ariz. 1991). “It concluded that the provisions of A.R.S. § 12-170 do not allow for a different result.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-170(C) — 10 cases
Sempre Ltd. P'ship v. Maricopa Cnty., 235 P.3d 259 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). “¶ 4 After briefing and oral argument, the tax court found in favor of the County and granted its motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.”
Devenir Assocs. v. City of Phoenix, 821 P.2d 161 (Ariz. 1991). “It concluded that the provisions of A.R.S. § 12-170 do not allow for a different result.”
People of Faith, Inc. v. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 791 P.2d 369 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990). “In its reply brief, the taxpayer argues that A.R.S. § 12-170 provides independent statutory authorization for an appeal from an interlocutory judgment of the tax court.”
Eurofresh, Inc. v. Graham Cnty., 187 P.3d 530 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). “We have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-170(C) and 12-2101(B) (2003).”
Hormel v. Maricopa Cnty., 232 P.3d 768 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). “The court adopted its previous findings of fact and conclusions of law, denied Taxpayer’s motion for summary judgment with respect to tax years 2001 through 2003, and denied the County’s cross-motion for summary judgment with respect to tax year 2004.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.