Copper Queen Consolidated Mining Co. v. Territorial Board of Equalization of the Territory of Arizona
Supreme Court of the United States
APPEAL PROM. THE SUPREME COTJRT OF THE TERRITORY OF ARIZONA. The facts are stated in the opinion. The Territorial Board of 'Equalization may, for the purpose of adjusting and equalizing, increase the aggregate value of one county and decrease that of another, but it has no power to increase the aggregate valuation of property in the Territory above the valuations returned by the Boards of Supervisors of the several counties.
Read the full summary
APPEAL PROM. THE SUPREME COTJRT OF THE TERRITORY OF ARIZONA. The facts are stated in the opinion. The Territorial Board of 'Equalization may, for the purpose of adjusting and equalizing, increase the aggregate value of one county and decrease that of another, but it has no power to increase the aggregate valuation of property in the Territory above the valuations returned by the Boards of Supervisors of the several counties. It is wholly a creature of statute and is of 'special and limited jurisdiction. It. • is essential to the validity of its acts that they should be authorized by some…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Holmes
delivered the opinion of the court.. This is an appeal .from a judgment on demurrer to a petition for a writ of certiorari. The object of the petition was to vacate proceedings of the Board of Equalization in 1905, by which the Board added very largely to the assessed valuation of patented mines and, in a less degree, of work horses and saddle horses, in Cochise County and other counties in Arizona. Jt was alleged that by these proceedings the Board increased the total valuation of property in the Territory and increased the valuation of the petitioner’s property of the above-men-, tioned…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad v. Interstate Commerce CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1906
- Northern Pacific Railroad v. HamblySupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- United States v. FinnellSupreme Court of the United States · 1902
- Henrietta Mining & Milling Co. v. GardnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1899
- Fox v. HaarstickSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by55 opinions
- Carolene Products Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1944
- De Castro v. Board of Comm'rs of San JuanSupreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Liberty Bank & Trust Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1932
- Jensen v. Intermountain Health Care, Inc.Utah Supreme Court · 1984
- State v. LundhighIdaho Supreme Court · 1917
50 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.