City of Phoenix v. ARIZONA SASH, DOOR & GLASS COMPANY

295 P.2d 854, 80 Ariz. 239, 1956 Ariz. LEXIS 206
CourtArizona Supreme Court
DecidedApril 6, 1956
Docket5963
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 295 P.2d 854 (City of Phoenix v. ARIZONA SASH, DOOR & GLASS COMPANY) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Arizona Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
City of Phoenix v. ARIZONA SASH, DOOR & GLASS COMPANY, 295 P.2d 854, 80 Ariz. 239, 1956 Ariz. LEXIS 206 (Ark. 1956).

Opinion

PHELPS, Justice.

It has been called to our attention by a motion for rehearing in the above-entitled cause that in the last paragraph of our decision we made the following order [80 Ariz. 100, 293 P.2d 441] :

*240 “The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to enter judgment for the City of Phoenix.”

An examination of the record discloses that the only question presented to us was:

“Did the City have the power to assess, levy and collect a privilege license tax?”

In other words, did the City of Phoenix have the power, under its Home Rule Charter, to enact Ordinance No. 5121 providing for levying, assessing and collecting an excise tax for revenue measured by gross sales and receipts, thus limiting our consideration to the validity of the ordinance?

We held in the original opinion that the City had the power to enact the ordinance and that it was valid and enforceable. We here reaffirm that holding but instead of directing that judgment be entered for the City, we direct that the judgment be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial for the purpose of determining the issues of fact raised by the complaint and answer, and it is so ordered.

LA PRADE, C. J., and UDALL and WINDES, JJ., and CHARLES C. BERNSTEIN, Superior Court Judge, concur. Justice FRED C. STRUCKMEYER, Jr., having disqualified himself, the Honorable CHARLES C. BERNSTEIN, Judge of the Superior Court of Maricopa County, was called to sit in his stead.

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

Related

MacHu v. Pinal County
Court of Appeals of Arizona, 2023
Harold Vangilder v. ador/pinal County
Arizona Supreme Court, 2022
Centric-Jones Co. v. Town of Marana
937 P.2d 654 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1996)
Consolidation Coal Co. v. Emery County
702 P.2d 121 (Utah Supreme Court, 1985)
Home Builders Ass'n of Central Arizona, Inc. v. Riddel
510 P.2d 376 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1973)
City of Phoenix v. Williams
361 P.2d 651 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1961)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
295 P.2d 854, 80 Ariz. 239, 1956 Ariz. LEXIS 206, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-phoenix-v-arizona-sash-door-glass-company-ariz-1956.