How cited: Cyprus Bagdad Copper Corp. v. Arizona Department of Revenue · Go Syfert

Cyprus Bagdad Copper Corp. v. Arizona Department of Revenue (1999)

green · 21 citation events across 2 courts. Showing the 9 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
200220142026
green Lohmeier v. Hammer (2006)
Rule Authority · Ariz. Ct. App. · 4 citations in this opinion
Co., 124 Ariz. 111, 114 , 602 P.2d 492, 495 (App.1979); Cyprus Bagdad Copper Corp. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, 196 Ariz. 5, 9, ¶ 17 , 992 P.2d 5, 9 (App.1999). ¶ 19 Here, the trial court’s award was based on its finding that Hammer had presented documentation of sufficient detail, complemented by testimony at trial, of the work performed by Dr. Peles.
Rule Authority · Ariz. Ct. App. · 2 citations in this opinion
Cyprus Bagdad Copper Corp. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, 196 Ariz. 5, ¶ 6 (App. 1999). ¶8 It is well-settled in Arizona that “the trial court is absolutely bound by the decision and mandate of an appellate court” and the trial court lacks the authority to review an appellate court’s determination.
Rule Authority · Ariz. Ct. App. · 2 citations in this opinion
Cyprus Bagdad Copper Corp. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, 196 Ariz. 5, 7, ¶ 6 (App. 1999); Molloy, 181 Ariz. at 149 . ¶21 We see no error.
Rule Authority · Ariz. Ct. App. · 2 citations in this opinion
An award of expert witness fees under § 12-348(B), however, is discretionary, Cyprus Bagdad Copper Cop. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, 196 Ariz. 5, 9, ¶ 17 , 992 P.2d 5, 9 (App.1999), and Taxpayers do not explain how the trial court abused its discretion.
Rule Authority · Ariz. Ct. App.
Cyprus Bagdad Copper Corp. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, 196 Ariz. 5, 7, ¶ 7 (App. 1999) (citation omitted).
citation omitted
green Carretero v. Carretero (2025)
Cited · Ariz. Ct. App. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion
See Cyprus Bagdad Copper Corp. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, 196 Ariz. 5 , 9 ¶ 14 (App. 1999). ¶17 Regarding the second element of prejudice, the superior court found ex-husband’s delay did not prejudice ex-wife because she spent the overpayments for her own enrichment.
green Miller v. Miller (2015)
Cited (see also) · Ariz. Ct. App. · signal: see, e.g. · 2 citations in this opinion
See, e.g., Cyprus Bagdad Copper Corp. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, 196 Ariz. 5, 7, ¶ 7 , 992 P.2d 5, 7 (App. 1999).
green Hess v. Purcell (2012)
Cited · Ariz. Ct. App. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion
See Cyprus Bagdad Copper Corp. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, 196 Ariz. 5, 9-10, ¶¶ 16-26 , 992 P.2d 5, 9-10 (App.1999) (rejecting the argument that an expert’s records were not sufficiently specific to support a $106, 000 fee under A.R.S. § 12-348(D)). ¶ 28 The County also complains that expenses for fundraising, for producing a video, and for food, gas, lodging and other goods and services were inappropriate.
green Tucson v. Orbitz (2024)
Cited · Ariz. Ct. App. · signal: see
See Cyprus Bagdad Copper Corp., 196 Ariz. at 7 ¶ 7 (stating trial courts on remand “may address any issues that the appellate court did not dispose of either expressly or impliedly”) (cleaned up).