Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2024 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arizona courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Department of Taxation and Finance of NY v. Milhelm Attea & Bros.green2 sentences2024To determine whether a state or local tax on non-Indians doing business on the reservation is preempted, a court undertakes a “particularized inquiry into the nature of the state, federal, and tribal interests at stake, an inquiry designed to determine whether, in the specific context, the exercise of state authority would violate federal law.” Id. at 145 ; accord Dep’t of Tax’n & Fin. of N.Y. v. Milhelm Attea & Bros., Inc., 512 U.S. 61, 73 (1994) (“Resolution of conflicts of this kind does not depend on ‘rigid rules’ or on ‘mechanical or absolute conceptions of state or tribal sovereignty,’ b 1997As we noted above, to test the validity of the state’s assessment against Blaze, we must engage in “a particularized inquiry into the nature of the state, federal, and tribal interests at stake, an inquiry designed to determine whether, in the specific context, the exercise of state authority would violate federal law.” White Mountain, 448 U.S. at 145 , 100 S.Ct. at 2584 ; accord Milhelm Attea & Bros., 512 U.S. at 61, 114 S.Ct. at 2029-30 ; State ex rel. | 3 | 3 |
White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Brackergreen2 sentences2024To determine whether a state or local tax on non-Indians doing business on the reservation is preempted, a court undertakes a “particularized inquiry into the nature of the state, federal, and tribal interests at stake, an inquiry designed to determine whether, in the specific context, the exercise of state authority would violate federal law.” Id. at 145 ; accord Dep’t of Tax’n & Fin. of N.Y. v. Milhelm Attea & Bros., Inc., 512 U.S. 61, 73 (1994) (“Resolution of conflicts of this kind does not depend on ‘rigid rules’ or on ‘mechanical or absolute conceptions of state or tribal sovereignty,’ b 2024To determine whether a state or local tax on non-Indians doing business on the reservation is preempted, a court undertakes a “particularized inquiry into the nature of the state, federal, and tribal interests at stake, an inquiry designed to determine whether, in the specific context, the exercise of state authority would violate federal law.” Id. at 145 ; accord Dep’t of Tax’n & Fin. of N.Y. v. Milhelm Attea & Bros., Inc., 512 U.S. 61, 73 (1994) (“Resolution of conflicts of this kind does not depend on ‘rigid rules’ or on ‘mechanical or absolute conceptions of state or tribal sovereignty,’ b | 2 | 8 |
State v. Gomezgreen2 sentences2018Deck, 544 U.S. at 629 ; State v. Gomez, 211 Ariz. 494, 502-03, ¶¶ 40-41 (2005). 2016Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622, 629 (2005); State v. Gomez, 211 Ariz. 494 , 502–03, ¶¶ 40–41 (2005). | 1 | 2 |
Deck v. Missourired2 sentences2018Deck, 544 U.S. at 629 ; State v. Gomez, 211 Ariz. 494, 502-03, ¶¶ 40-41 (2005). 2016Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622, 629 (2005); State v. Gomez, 211 Ariz. 494 , 502–03, ¶¶ 40–41 (2005). | 1 | 2 |
State Ex Rel. Arizona Department of Revenue v. Dillongreen2 sentences1997Dep’t of Revenue v. Dillon, 170 Ariz. 560, 564 , 826 P.2d 1186, 1189-90 (App. 1991). 1997Dep’t of Revenue v. Dillon, 170 Ariz. 560, 564 , 826 P.2d 1186, 1189-90 (App. 1991). | 1 | 2 |
Ute Mountain Ute Tribe v. Rodriguezgreen1 sentence2024See generally Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, 660 F.3d at 1187 . | 1 | 1 |
Chimel v. Californiared1 sentence2016Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 763 (1969). 3 STATE v. PARKER Decision of the Court reserved for the miniature golf course[.]” The court overruled the objection, reasoning that the sheriff’s office had developed restraint policies over the years to ensure the safety of all trial participants. ¶9 A trial court abuses its discretion by allowing visible restraints at trial without making a particularized inquiry into their necessity. | 1 | 1 |
Peabody Coal Co. v. Stategreen2 sentences1991See generally Peabody Coal Co. v. State, 158 Ariz. 190 , 761 P.2d 1094 (App.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1051 , 109 S.Ct. 1967 , 104 L.Ed.2d 435 (1989). 1991See generally Peabody Coal Co. v. State, 158 Ariz. 190 , 761 P.2d 1094 (App.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1051 , 109 S.Ct. 1967 , 104 L.Ed.2d 435 (1989). | 1 | 1 |
Peabody Coal Co. v. Arizonagreen2 sentences1991See generally Peabody Coal Co. v. State, 158 Ariz. 190 , 761 P.2d 1094 (App.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1051 , 109 S.Ct. 1967 , 104 L.Ed.2d 435 (1989). 1991See generally Peabody Coal Co. v. State, 158 Ariz. 190 , 761 P.2d 1094 (App.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1051 , 109 S.Ct. 1967 , 104 L.Ed.2d 435 (1989). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
New Mexico v. Mescalero Apache Tribe
green
1 sentence2024In balancing these interests, “[t]he traditional notions of Indian sovereignty provide a crucial ‘backdrop’ against which any assertion of State authority must be assessed,” as does the fact that “both the tribes and the Federal Government are firmly committed to the goal of promoting tribal self-government, a goal embodied in numerous federal statutes.” New Mexico v. Mescalero Apache Tribe, 462 U.S. 324 , 334-35 (1983) (internal citations omitted). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Utah & Northern Railway v. Fisher
green
1 sentence2024Co. v. Fisher, 116 U.S. 28 , 29-30, 33 (1885) (upholding a territorial tax of a section of a non-Indian’s railroad that crossed onto reservation land, reasoning that the tax did not interfere with tribal sovereignty).6 ¶23 The truisms relied on by the Pickerel Lake court apply here as well, and South Point points to nothing about the federal regulation of power plants that is more extensive or intensive when a plant is on tribal land or how a particularized inquiry into the nature of the federal, tribal, and state interests at stake leads to the conclusion that the tax is preempted. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Blaze Construction Co.
green
1 sentence2023To assess the extent of a state’s interest, the Supreme Court formulated a balancing test requiring “a particularized inquiry into the nature of the state, federal, and tribal interests at stake.” Id. at 145 . ¶10 Applying this balancing test to the facts of the case, the Supreme Court held that the federal government’s “comprehensive” regulatory scheme for harvesting timber on Native American reservations was “so pervasive” that it precluded Arizona’s assessment of certain state taxes on the logging and hauling proceeds from a nontribal company’s contract with a Native American tribe to “fell | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.