Legal Opinion · Dissent

Recreation Centers of Sun City, Inc. v. Maricopa County

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided November 2, 1989No. CV-87-0087-PRPublished

1DissentCameron, Justice

Because the majority has held that “the assessor may not consider the restrictions limiting profitability or the class of users to be benefitted in determining the assessed value of the property,” I must dissent.

In this case, the majority has correctly stated Arizona taxation principles, but has ignored the practical reality of how the non-profit use restriction affects fair market value. Market value is defined as “the highest price estimated in terms of money which the property will bring if exposed for sale in the open market allowing a reasonable time to find a purchaser who buys with…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Boston Edison Co. v. Board of Assessors of WatertownMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1982
  2. O'DONNELL v. MavesArizona Supreme Court · 1968
  3. Gowen v. SwainSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1939
  4. Graham County & the Arizona State Department v. Graham County Electric Cooperative, Inc.Arizona Supreme Court · 1973
  5. Twin Lakes Golf & Country Club v. King CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1976

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API