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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-171 (2026)

Publication of decisions

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

Decisions of the tax court that the court finds are of general public interest, other than decisions relating to ad valorem property tax, shall be published and distributed in the same manner as provided for the publication and distribution of the opinions of the supreme court.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases, 1989–2010 · leading case: Sonitrol of Maricopa Cnty. v. City of Phoenix, 891 P.2d 880 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Sonitrol of Maricopa Cnty. v. City of Phoenix, 891 P.2d 880 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 5× “The tax court entered judgment in accordance with its ruling on October 8, 1992.”
People of Faith, Inc. v. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 791 P.2d 369 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 4× “The Department then filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment alleging that in-state purchases are subject to use taxes. After this issue was fully briefed and argued, the tax court filed an opinion denying the taxpayer’s motion and granting the Department’s cross-motion…”
Ellman Land Corp. v. Maricopa Cnty., 884 P.2d 217 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “The tax court thereafter filed a written opinion pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-171 (1992). Ellman Land Corp.”
Maricopa Cnty. v. Arizona Tax Court, 781 P.2d 41 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “Counsel for the real parties in interest attempted service of the notices of appeal on petitioner, Maricopa County, by serving the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office by certified mail.”
Est. of Bohn v. Waddell, 848 P.2d 324 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). “section 12-171. See Bohn v. Waddell, 164 Ariz.”
Bohn v. Waddell, 807 P.2d 1 (Ariz. T.C. 1991). · cites it 2× “On April 6, 1990, this Court, pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-171, issued its Opinion on certain issues presented to the Court by the litigants.”
Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. v. City of Phoenix, 880 P.2d 1083 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 6× “On November 30,1989, the tax court granted summary judgment for Ryder, stating “pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-171, the Court proposes to publish an opinion setting forth the reasons for the decision just announced.”
Hing v. Maricopa Cnty., 231 P.3d 953 (Ariz. T.C. 2010). · cites it 2× “[1] However, as it seems that the distinct procedural posture of those two cases has resulted in confusion as to the general rule, the Court designates this opinion for publication pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-171. Conclusion To find the deadline in A.”
Suncor Dev. v. Maricopa Cnty., 788 P.2d 136 (Ariz. T.C. 1990). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 12-171 (Supp. 1989) provides the Court with its authority for publishing this decision.”
City of Phoenix v. Arizona Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc., 893 P.2d 75 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995). “The City then appealed to the tax court as authorized by Phoenix City Code section 14-575.”
Maracay Thunderbird v. Maricopa Cnty., 231 P.3d 389 (Ariz. T.C. 2010). · cites it 2× “*392 Because the Court finds the jurisdictional issue raised by this case to be of general public interest, and an issue that is somewhat likely to recur absent clear, binding legal precedent, [4] the Court designates this decision for publication pursuant to A.”
Tile USA v. Maricopa Cnty., 855 P.2d 430 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “The Tax Court’s Opinion The merits of this dispute were tried without a jury over 10 days in November 1989.”
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.