Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 42
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-16201 (2026)

Appeal from county assessor to court

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

A. A property owner who is dissatisfied with the valuation or classification of the property as determined by the county assessor may appeal directly to the court as provided by this article on or before December 15 regardless of whether the person has exhausted the administrative remedies under this chapter, except as provided in subsection B of this section.

B. A person who files a petition with the county assessor pursuant to section 42-16051 may file an appeal with the court within sixty days after the date of mailing the most recent administrative decision relating to the petition or subsequent administrative appeal.

C. Filing an appeal with the court suspends and renders subject to dismissal any pending administrative proceeding filed by the taxpayer relating to any issue that is or may be determined by the court under a pending appeal.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1999–2021 · leading case: Sempre Ltd. P'ship v. Maricopa Cnty., 235 P.3d 259 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Sempre Ltd. P'ship v. Maricopa Cnty., 235 P.3d 259 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 12× “¶ 16 The 2007 amendment to § 42-12153(B) added the phrase “or 5” to the last sentence: “The owner or agent may appeal the classification as prescribed by chapter 16, article 2 or 5 of this title regardless of whether the owner or agent filed an application form.”
Hing v. Maricopa Cnty., 231 P.3d 953 (Ariz. T.C. 2010). · cites it 18× “The Court must also construe A.R.S. § 42-16201 so as not to leave any other statutory provision inert, trivial or redundant.”
Frederikson v. Maricopa Cnty., 3 P.3d 1024 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 8× “Now A.R.S. § 42-16201. 5 . The levy takes place "[o]n or before the third Monday in August each year.”
Tucson Botanical Gardens, Inc. v. Pima Cnty., 189 P.3d 1096 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “¶ 6 TBG then filed a direct appeal in the superior court, see A.R.S. §§ 42-16201(A), - 16207(A) (2006), and requested a refund and a determination that all of its property was tax exempt and had been improperly valued, classified, and assessed by the County.”
Lockerby v. Pima Cnty. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 7× “Rather than dismissing his claims in their entirety, the superior court construed Lockerby’s arguments as a tax appeal under A.R.S. § 42-16201, which allows a “property owner who is dissatisfied with the valuation or classification of [his property] as determined by the county…”
Burlingame Indus., Inc. v. Maricopa Cnty., 263 P.3d 66 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 7× “¶ 8 In Sempre we held that A.R.S. §§ 42-16201 and -15104 permitted an appeal directly to the tax court of a valuation of real property without exhaustion of administrative remedies.”
Maracay Thunderbird v. Maricopa Cnty., 231 P.3d 389 (Ariz. T.C. 2010). · cites it 6× “§ 42-16210(B) as an example of the legislature imposing a continuing duty on the part of the plaintiff to pay taxes as they come due and stripping the court of jurisdiction should the taxes become delinquent: "If the taxes are not paid before becoming delinquent, the court shall…”
Loma Mariposa v. Santa Cruz (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “If the material facts are undisputed, we must determine “whether the tax court correctly applied the substantive law to 4 Taxpayer challenged the valuation of its property for tax year 2013, not as an error correction but rather pursuant to A.R.S. § 42-16201(B) (2006). See Loma…”
Hees v. Maricopa (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “” See A.R.S. §§ 42-16201 to -16215. These statutes, including § 42-16209, set forth 1Because the County had already answered Taxpayers’ complaint, it moved for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c).”
Qasimyar v. Maricopa (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 42-16201(A) (property owner dissatisfied with county assessor’s valuation or classification may file a direct appeal with the tax court “regardless of whether the person has exhausted the administrative remedies under this chapter”).”
Phoenix Cement v. Yavapai (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. §§ 42-16201, -16203, - 16207, -19051, -19052.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-16201(A) — 8 cases
Sempre Ltd. P'ship v. Maricopa Cnty., 235 P.3d 259 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). “¶ 16 The 2007 amendment to § 42-12153(B) added the phrase “or 5” to the last sentence: “The owner or agent may appeal the classification as prescribed by chapter 16, article 2 or 5 of this title regardless of whether the owner or agent filed an application form.”
Hing v. Maricopa Cnty., 231 P.3d 953 (Ariz. T.C. 2010). “The Court must also construe A.R.S. § 42-16201 so as not to leave any other statutory provision inert, trivial or redundant.”
Tucson Botanical Gardens, Inc. v. Pima Cnty., 189 P.3d 1096 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). “¶ 6 TBG then filed a direct appeal in the superior court, see A.R.S. §§ 42-16201(A), - 16207(A) (2006), and requested a refund and a determination that all of its property was tax exempt and had been improperly valued, classified, and assessed by the County.”
Frederikson v. Maricopa Cnty., 3 P.3d 1024 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999). “Now A.R.S. § 42-16201. 5 . The levy takes place "[o]n or before the third Monday in August each year.”
Lockerby v. Pima Cnty. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “Rather than dismissing his claims in their entirety, the superior court construed Lockerby’s arguments as a tax appeal under A.R.S. § 42-16201, which allows a “property owner who is dissatisfied with the valuation or classification of [his property] as determined by the county…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-16201(B) — 2 cases
Frederikson v. Maricopa Cnty., 3 P.3d 1024 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999). “Now A.R.S. § 42-16201. 5 . The levy takes place "[o]n or before the third Monday in August each year.”
Loma Mariposa v. Santa Cruz (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “If the material facts are undisputed, we must determine “whether the tax court correctly applied the substantive law to 4 Taxpayer challenged the valuation of its property for tax year 2013, not as an error correction but rather pursuant to A.R.S. § 42-16201(B) (2006). See Loma…”
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.