# Shaw v. State

> Court of Appeals of Arizona · November 20, 1968 · 8 Ariz. App. 447

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9574715

## Case

- **Full name:** Harold M. SHAW, Dba Shaw Truck Leasing Company, and Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., Appellants, v. the STATE of Arizona and Clyde Killingsworth, as Superintendent of Motor Vehicles, Arizona State Highway Department, Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Arizona
- **Decided:** November 20, 1968
- **Citations:** 8 Ariz. App. 447; 447 P.2d 262; 1968 Ariz. App. LEXIS 563
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Stevens
- **Judges:** Donofrio, Stevens, Cameron
- **Cited by:** 29 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9574715

## Opinion text

STEVENS, Judge
(specially concurring).
I concur in the majority opinion in its entirety except for one legal proposition. The majority states that once a suit is filed it would be “unnecessarily onerous” to require the taxpayer to file a new action or a supplemental complaint to protect each monthly protest payment. I find no statutory exemption. To my mind it would be a simple procedure to draft a complaint in such form that a supplement to the complaint could be prepared, served and filed covering each additional payment under protest. The need for this procedure is especially clear if it he that it is not necessary to accompany each payment with a formal protest.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9574715. Public record. Not legal advice.