Brown v. Kunes

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Brown v. Kunes

533 P.2d 675, 23 Ariz. App. 367, 1975 Ariz. App. LEXIS 560

CourtCourt of Appeals of Arizona

DecidedApril 17, 1975

DocketNo. 1 CA-CIV 2556

StatusPublished

This text of 533 P.2d 675 (Brown v. Kunes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brown v. Kunes, 533 P.2d 675, 23 Ariz. App. 367, 1975 Ariz. App. LEXIS 560 (Ark. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

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 (1974) (review granted August 7, 1974), which concerned the Pima County equivalent of the Maricopa County plan. In accordance with that decision, we hold that the trial court’s decision in. the case sub judice must be affirmed.

The appellees have filed a cross-appeal challenging the propriety of the class action status which the trial court allowed. Since we have affirmed the trial court on the merits of the appeal, we will consider the cross-appeal abandoned in accordance with appellees’ wishes as stated at oral argument.

Since we can find no reason to depart from our opinion in Hillock v. Bade, supra, the judgment is affirmed.

JACOBSON, P. J., and EUBANK, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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 (1974) (review granted August 7, 1974), which concerned the Pima County equivalent of the Maricopa County plan. In accordance with that decision, we hold that the trial court’s decision in. the case sub judice must be affirmed.

The appellees have filed a cross-appeal challenging the propriety of the class action status which the trial court allowed. Since we have affirmed the trial court on the merits of the appeal, we will consider the cross-appeal abandoned in accordance with appellees’ wishes as stated at oral argument.

Since we can find no reason to depart from our opinion in Hillock v. Bade, supra, the judgment is affirmed.

JACOBSON, P. J., and EUBANK, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

533 P.2d 675, 23 Ariz. App. 367, 1975 Ariz. App. LEXIS 560, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-kunes-arizctapp-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack