Court Opinion

ID: 9548079
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:57:10.326817+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:18:27.100694
License: Public Domain

CAMERON, Chief Justice,
specially concurring.
The record in the instant case does not make it clear whether the campus of Northern Arizona University is part of the City of Flagstaff. Assuming, for the purpose of this concurrence, that the campus is not part of the City of Flagstaff, even though it may be completely surrounded by the corporate limits of the city, I must take exception with the statement of the opinion which reads:
*562“An examination of Flagstaff Ordinance No. 436, which describes the corporate limits, demonstrates that the exterior boundary of Flagstaff completely surrounds Northern Arizona University. This geographical fact satisfies the ‘within’ requirement of the ordinances. This conclusion comports with the ordinary meaning of ‘within’—‘on the innerside * * * inside the bounds of a region’. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, 2627 (1965). We therefore reject appellant’s theory of Northern Arizona University being a geographical entity not ‘within’ the City of Flagstaff, as defined by the terms of the privilege tax ordinances.”
I have no problem with the result reached by the majority because I feel Flagstaff’s privilege tax ordinance may be logically construed to include within a retailer’s tax base all gross sales of the business, including those consummated beyond the corporate limits, City of Phoenix v. Arizona Sash, Door and Glass Company, 80 Ariz. 100, 293 P.2d 438 (1956), but for the reason that I believe the statement of the majority opinion concerning “within” is misleading, I must specially concur.