BROWN v. KUNES

No. 1 CA-CIV 2556.

23 Ariz. App. 367 (1975)

533 P.2d 675

Cecil BROWN and Warenell Brown, husband and wife, Hazel Huckaby and Faye Huckaby, husband and wife, Arthur McCuin and Lorenza McCuin, husband and wife, in their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Melvin Kowal and Eileen B. Kowal, husband and wife, Charles L. Haeussler and Kathleen Haeussler, husband and wife, Richard E. Leggee and Catherine L. Leggee, husband and wife, and Elbert P. Huey and Elaine Huey, husband and wife, in their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Appellants and Cross-Appellees, v. Kenneth KUNES, Maricopa County Assessor, Harold D. Lafferty, Maricopa County Treasurer, Henry Haws, Bob Stark, and B.W. Burns, as members of the Board of Supervisors of Maricopa County, Henry Haws, Bob Stark, and B.W. Burns, as members of the County Board of Equalization, Maricopa County, Arizona, a body politic, Lowell L. Monsees, Howard L. Relfe, and Charles Moody, as members of the Arizona State Board of Property Tax Appeals, Ernest Garfield, Treasurer of the State of Arizona, Arlo Woolery, Director of Department of Property Valuation, State of Arizona, a body politic, Appellees and Cross-Appellants.

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

Rehearing Denied May 9, 1975.

Review Denied June 17, 1975.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Jerry Levine, Scottsdale, for appellants and cross-appellees, Brown and others.

Harold A. Donegan, Jr., Scottsdale, for appellants and cross-appellees Kowal and others.

Beer, Kalyna & Simon by Olgerd W. Kalyna, and Bruce E. Babbitt, Atty. Gen., by James D. Winter, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for appellees and cross-appellants.


OPINION

HAIRE, Chief Judge, Division 1.

On this appeal the appellant property owners challenge the trial court's determination that the Maricopa County cyclical revaluation plan being utilized by the appellee-assessor at the time of the trial court litigation was constitutional. The central questions here involved are governed by our decision in Hillock v. Bade, 22 Ariz.App. 46, 523 P.2d 97

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