Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lois Grunow Memorial Clinic v. Ed Oglesby

Supreme Court of Arizona

June 9, 1933

LOIS GRUNOW MEMORIAL CLINIC, a Corporation Appellant,
v.
ED OGLESBY, Assessor of Maricopa County, Arizona, et al., Appellees

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Maricopa. Fred W. Fickett, Judge. Judgment affirmed.

Mr. H. S. McCluskey, for Appellant.

Mr. Renz L. Jennings, Mr. M. L. Ollerton, Mr. Dudley W. Windes and Mr. Charles L. Strouss, for Appellee Maricopa County.

Mr. L. C. McNabb, Mr. Wm. C. Eliot, Mr. Charles A. Carson, Jr., and Mr. James E. Nelson, for Appellee City of Phoenix.

OPINION

[42 Ariz. 99] RODGERS, Superior Judge.

This is a suit instituted by Lois Grunow Memorial Clinic, a corporation, against the tax officials of the state of Arizona, the county of Maricopa, and the city of Phoenix, a municipal corporation, the ultimate object and purpose of which is to prevent by judicial interposition and mandate the assessment and collection of state, county and municipal taxes, levied and assessed against the real and personal property of the appellant, located in the city of Phoenix, Maricopa county, Arizona, and more particularly described as lots 16, 17 and 18, block 6, Hurley Heights subdivision, an addition to the city of Phoenix, and the building erected thereon, and the personal property and equipment therein contained.

There is no substantial conflict as to the material facts presented for consideration, the actual controversy being predicated upon the proper legal deductions to be drawn from the facts in the premises.

The appellant presents two propositions of law in support of its contentions that its property, both real and personal, should be exempted from taxation. The two propositions so presented are summarized by appellant

Page 1077

in the form of interrogatories, and are stated as follows:

"Is the use to which appellant's property is devoted of such character as to exempt it from taxation under the constitution and laws of the State of Arizona?

"Is section 611 of the Revised Code of Arizona of 1928 unconstitutional?"

We will consider these propositions in the order presented.

[42 Ariz. 100] The answer to the first proposition must be determined by reference to, and the interpretation of, certain constitutional provisions and statutory enactments in so far ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.