City of Tempe v. Del E. Webb Corporation

CITY OF TEMPE, a Municipal Corporation, Appellant, v. DEL E. WEBB CORPORATION, an Arizona Corporation, Appellee

City of Tempe v. Del E. Webb Corp., 482 P.2d 477 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1971)

Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona · State Appellate Courts
Decided: March 18, 1971
Docket: No. 1 CA-CIV 1293
Judges: Howard
Citations: 482 P.2d 47714 Ariz. App. 2281971 Ariz. App. LEXIS 538

Cited by 8

Opinion — Howard

HOWARD, Judge.

We have not been convinced, on-motion for rehearing, that our previous de *229 cisión in this case was incorrect. However, it has been the pattern in this jurisdiction that in tax matters, when a previous decision is overruled, the new decision is given prospective effect only. See e. g. Duhame v. State Tax Commission, 65 Ariz. 268 , 179 P.2d 252 (1947); Arizona State Tax Commission v. Ensign, 75 Ariz. 376 , 257 P.2d 392 (1953); Southern Pacific Co. v. Cochise County, 92 Ariz. 395 , 377 P.2d 770 (1963).

Therefore, in fairness to the parties who have relied upon the previous holding of this court in Ashton Company v. City of Tucson, 7 Ariz.App. 509 , 441 P.2d 275 (1968) and who have entered into contracts with the belief that transactions of the type involved here were not subject to a transaction privilege tax, we hold that our decision in the case sub judice be given prospective effect.

A ruling which is purely prospective does not apply even to the parties before the court. Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618 , 85 S.Ct. 1731 , 14 L.Ed.2d 601 (1965); cf. Southern Pacific Co. v. Cochise County, supra. Fundamental fairness dictates that the prospective operation of the rule we have announced in this case be accorded to appellee as well, which requires affirmance of the judgment below in its favor. Oklahoma County v. Queen City Lodge No. 197, I. O. O. F., 195 Okl. 131 , 156 P.2d 340 (1945).

We adhere to our decision in this case, with the exception that it shall not apply to transactions consummated prior to the date thereof.

For the reasons herein stated, the previous decision of this court is modified as to the disposition of the instant case and the judgment is affirmed.

KRUCKER, C. J., and HATHAWAY, J., concur.

NOTE: This cause was decided by the Judges of Division Two as authorized by A.R.S. § 12-120, subsec. E.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 8 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Reed v. Reed604 P.2d 648 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979)
Wilderness World, Inc. v. Department of Revenue895 P.2d 108 (Ariz. 1995)
Hollywood Continental Films v. Industrial Commission506 P.2d 274 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1973)
Adams v. Industrial Commission547 P.2d 1089 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1976)
Clark v. Curran575 P.2d 326 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977)
Juniel v. Juniel623 P.2d 848 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980)

Most recent

Interlott Technologies, Inc. v. Arizona Department of Revenue72 P.3d 1271 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003)
Valencia Energy Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue938 P.2d 474 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996)
Wilderness World, Inc. v. Department of Revenue895 P.2d 108 (Ariz. 1995)
Juniel v. Juniel623 P.2d 848 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980)
Reed v. Reed604 P.2d 648 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979)
Clark v. Curran575 P.2d 326 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 6

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618 (1965)	2,186
	Southern Pac. Co. v. Cochise Cnty., 377 P.2d 770 (Ariz. 1963)	78
	Duhame v. State Tax Comm'n, 179 P.2d 252 (Ariz. 1947)	65
	Okla. Cnty. v. Queen City Lodge No. 197, I. O. O. F., 1945 OK 55, 156 P.2d 340	46
	Ariz. State Tax Comm'n v. Ensign, 257 P.2d 392 (Ariz. 1953)	24
	Ashton Co. v. City of Tucson, 441 P.2d 275 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1968)	4

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list