CITIZENS TELECOMMUNICATIONS CO. v. ARIZONA DOR

No. 1 CA-TX 02-0017.

75 P.3d 123 (2003)

206 Ariz. 33

CITIZENS TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANY OF THE WHITE MOUNTAINS, an Arizona corporation; Citizens Navajo Communications Company, an Arizona corporation; Arizona Telephone Company, Inc., an Arizona corporation; Southwestern Telephone Company, Inc., an Arizona corporation; Valley Telephone Cooperative, Inc., an Arizona corporation; Copper Valley Telephone, Inc., a Nevada corporation; and U.S. West Communications, Inc., nka Qwest, a Colorado corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, an Agency of the State of Arizona; Apache, Cochise, Coconino, Gila, Graham, Greenlee, La Paz, Maricopa, Mohave, Navajo, Pima, Pinal, Santa Cruz, Yavapai, and Yuma Counties, Political Subdivisions of the State of Arizona, Defendants-Appellants. Citizens Telecommunications Company of the White Mountains, an Arizona corporation; Citizens Navajo Communications Company, an Arizona corporation; Arizona Telephone Company, Inc., an Arizona corporation; Southwestern Telephone Company, Inc., an Arizona corporation; Valley Telephone Cooperative, Inc., an Arizona corporation; and Copper Valley Telephone, Inc., a Nevada corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Arizona Department of Revenue, an Agency of the State of Arizona; Apache, Cochise, Coconino, Gila, Graham, Greenlee, La Paz, Maricopa, Mohave, Navajo, Pima, Pinal, Santa Cruz, Yavapai, and Yuma Counties, Political Subdivisions of the State of Arizona, Defendants-Appellees.

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

August 26, 2003.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Fennemore Craig, P.C. by Paul J. Mooney, Kendis K. Muscheid, Paul Moore, Phoenix, Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellees, Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Sanders & Parks, P.C. by Robert J. Bruno, Jay C. Jacobson and Terry Goddard, Attorney General by Frank Boucek, Assistant Attorney General, Phoenix, Attorneys for Defendants-Appellants, Defendants-Appellees.


OPINION

WEISBERG, Judge.

¶ 1 The Arizona Department of Revenue ("ADOR" or the "Department") and fifteen Arizona counties (the "Counties") appeal from the tax court's judgment that ADOR violated the Uniformity Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Arizona Constitution in applying Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") sections 42-793 and 42-793.01 (1997) to Qwest Corporation ("Qwest") during the 1997, 1998, and 1999 tax years. Meanwhile, six incumbent...

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