seller privilege in Arizona

8 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1951–2004 0 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.

Followed or applied (2)

Case	Followed	Cited
Desert Golf Cars v. Yamaha Motor Co.green arizctapp · 2000 · cited in 2 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 2 sentences 2004See Desert Golf Cars v. Yamaha Motor Co., 198 Ariz. 103, ¶ 15 , 7 P.3d 112, 116 (App.2000) (“[A] favorable defense verdict [in the underlying tort action] does not preclude indemnity.”); McIntyre Refrigeration, Inc. v. Mepco Electra, 165 Ariz. 560, 564 , 799 P.2d 901, 905 (App.1990) ("[A] manufacturer’s product need not be proven to be defective to render the manufacturer liable for the seller's defense costs.”); Hellebrandt v. Kelley Co., 153 Ariz. 429 , 737 P.2d 405 (App.1987) (same). 2004See Desert Golf Cars v. Yamaha Motor Co., 198 Ariz. 103, ¶ 15 , 7 P.3d 112, 116 (App.2000) (“[A] favorable defense verdict [in the underlying tort action] does not preclude indemnity.”); McIntyre Refrigeration, Inc. v. Mepco Electra, 165 Ariz. 560, 564 , 799 P.2d 901, 905 (App.1990) ("[A] manufacturer’s product need not be proven to be defective to render the manufacturer liable for the seller's defense costs.”); Hellebrandt v. Kelley Co., 153 Ariz. 429 , 737 P.2d 405 (App.1987) (same).	2	2
McIntyre Refrigeration, Inc. v. Mepco Electragreen arizctapp · 1990 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 2 sentences 2004See Desert Golf Cars v. Yamaha Motor Co., 198 Ariz. 103, ¶ 15 , 7 P.3d 112, 116 (App.2000) (“[A] favorable defense verdict [in the underlying tort action] does not preclude indemnity.”); McIntyre Refrigeration, Inc. v. Mepco Electra, 165 Ariz. 560, 564 , 799 P.2d 901, 905 (App.1990) ("[A] manufacturer’s product need not be proven to be defective to render the manufacturer liable for the seller's defense costs.”); Hellebrandt v. Kelley Co., 153 Ariz. 429 , 737 P.2d 405 (App.1987) (same). 2004See Desert Golf Cars v. Yamaha Motor Co., 198 Ariz. 103, ¶ 15 , 7 P.3d 112, 116 (App.2000) (“[A] favorable defense verdict [in the underlying tort action] does not preclude indemnity.”); McIntyre Refrigeration, Inc. v. Mepco Electra, 165 Ariz. 560, 564 , 799 P.2d 901, 905 (App.1990) ("[A] manufacturer’s product need not be proven to be defective to render the manufacturer liable for the seller's defense costs.”); Hellebrandt v. Kelley Co., 153 Ariz. 429 , 737 P.2d 405 (App.1987) (same).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (9)

Case	Cited	Years
State Tax Commission v. Quebedeaux Chevrolet green ariz · 1951 2 sentences 1974Construing the Act as a whole, which we must do . •. . we believe it is manifest that the intent of the legislature was . that the Act in its harmonious whole leaves no doubt that the ‘gross proceeds of sales’ and ‘gross income’ subject to taxation include all sums re ceived by retailers, including the 2% tax passed on to the buyer as part of the purchase price.” Id. at 286 , 226 P.2d at 553 . (emphasis in original) The court then summarized its holding by stating: “In conclusion we hold: (1) that the Act does not impose a tax upon the purchaser nor upon sales, but rather places a tax upon the 1974Construing the Act as a whole, which we must do . •. . we believe it is manifest that the intent of the legislature was . that the Act in its harmonious whole leaves no doubt that the ‘gross proceeds of sales’ and ‘gross income’ subject to taxation include all sums re ceived by retailers, including the 2% tax passed on to the buyer as part of the purchase price.” Id. at 286 , 226 P.2d at 553 . (emphasis in original) The court then summarized its holding by stating: “In conclusion we hold: (1) that the Act does not impose a tax upon the purchaser nor upon sales, but rather places a tax upon the	3	1963–1974
Arizona State Tax Commission v. Frank Harmonson Co. Metal Products green ariz · 1945 2 sentences 1974Construing the Act as a whole, which we must do . •. . we believe it is manifest that the intent of the legislature was . that the Act in its harmonious whole leaves no doubt that the ‘gross proceeds of sales’ and ‘gross income’ subject to taxation include all sums re ceived by retailers, including the 2% tax passed on to the buyer as part of the purchase price.” Id. at 286 , 226 P.2d at 553 . (emphasis in original) The court then summarized its holding by stating: “In conclusion we hold: (1) that the Act does not impose a tax upon the purchaser nor upon sales, but rather places a tax upon the 1974Construing the Act as a whole, which we must do . •. . we believe it is manifest that the intent of the legislature was . that the Act in its harmonious whole leaves no doubt that the ‘gross proceeds of sales’ and ‘gross income’ subject to taxation include all sums re ceived by retailers, including the 2% tax passed on to the buyer as part of the purchase price.” Id. at 286 , 226 P.2d at 553 . (emphasis in original) The court then summarized its holding by stating: “In conclusion we hold: (1) that the Act does not impose a tax upon the purchaser nor upon sales, but rather places a tax upon the	2	1951–1974
White v. Moore green ariz · 1935 2 sentences 1974Construing the Act as a whole, which we must do . •. . we believe it is manifest that the intent of the legislature was . that the Act in its harmonious whole leaves no doubt that the ‘gross proceeds of sales’ and ‘gross income’ subject to taxation include all sums re ceived by retailers, including the 2% tax passed on to the buyer as part of the purchase price.” Id. at 286 , 226 P.2d at 553 . (emphasis in original) The court then summarized its holding by stating: “In conclusion we hold: (1) that the Act does not impose a tax upon the purchaser nor upon sales, but rather places a tax upon the 1974Construing the Act as a whole, which we must do . •. . we believe it is manifest that the intent of the legislature was . that the Act in its harmonious whole leaves no doubt that the ‘gross proceeds of sales’ and ‘gross income’ subject to taxation include all sums re ceived by retailers, including the 2% tax passed on to the buyer as part of the purchase price.” Id. at 286 , 226 P.2d at 553 . (emphasis in original) The court then summarized its holding by stating: “In conclusion we hold: (1) that the Act does not impose a tax upon the purchaser nor upon sales, but rather places a tax upon the	2	1951–1974
Hellebrandt v. Kelley Co., Inc. green arizctapp · 1987 2 sentences 2004See Desert Golf Cars v. Yamaha Motor Co., 198 Ariz. 103, ¶ 15 , 7 P.3d 112, 116 (App.2000) (“[A] favorable defense verdict [in the underlying tort action] does not preclude indemnity.”); McIntyre Refrigeration, Inc. v. Mepco Electra, 165 Ariz. 560, 564 , 799 P.2d 901, 905 (App.1990) ("[A] manufacturer’s product need not be proven to be defective to render the manufacturer liable for the seller's defense costs.”); Hellebrandt v. Kelley Co., 153 Ariz. 429 , 737 P.2d 405 (App.1987) (same). 2004See Desert Golf Cars v. Yamaha Motor Co., 198 Ariz. 103, ¶ 15 , 7 P.3d 112, 116 (App.2000) (“[A] favorable defense verdict [in the underlying tort action] does not preclude indemnity.”); McIntyre Refrigeration, Inc. v. Mepco Electra, 165 Ariz. 560, 564 , 799 P.2d 901, 905 (App.1990) ("[A] manufacturer’s product need not be proven to be defective to render the manufacturer liable for the seller's defense costs.”); Hellebrandt v. Kelley Co., 153 Ariz. 429 , 737 P.2d 405 (App.1987) (same).	1	2004–2004
Arizona State Tax Com'n v. Garrett Corporation green ariz · 1955 2 sentences 1963The legal incidence of the tax falls upon the seller and not upon the buyer. [4] Arizona State Tax Commission v. Garrett Corp., 79 Ariz. 389 , 291 P.2d 208 ; State Tax Commission v. Quebedeaux Chevrolet, 71 Ariz. 280 , 226 P.2d 549 . 1963The legal incidence of the tax falls upon the seller and not upon the buyer. [4] Arizona State Tax Commission v. Garrett Corp., 79 Ariz. 389 , 291 P.2d 208 ; State Tax Commission v. Quebedeaux Chevrolet, 71 Ariz. 280 , 226 P.2d 549 .	1	1963–1963
Parrish v. Parrish neutral ala · 1952 2 sentences 1962Parrish v. Parrish, 258 Ala. 13 , 61 So.2d 130 ; Bender v. Kaelin, 257 Ky. 783 , 79 S.W.2d 250 ; Law v. Meadows, 131 W. 1962Parrish v. Parrish, 258 Ala. 13 , 61 So.2d 130 ; Bender v. Kaelin, 257 Ky. 783 , 79 S.W.2d 250 ; Law v. Meadows, 131 W.	1	1962–1962
Bender v. Kaelin neutral kyctapphigh · 1935 2 sentences 1962Parrish v. Parrish, 258 Ala. 13 , 61 So.2d 130 ; Bender v. Kaelin, 257 Ky. 783 , 79 S.W.2d 250 ; Law v. Meadows, 131 W. 1962Parrish v. Parrish, 258 Ala. 13 , 61 So.2d 130 ; Bender v. Kaelin, 257 Ky. 783 , 79 S.W.2d 250 ; Law v. Meadows, 131 W.	1	1962–1962
Law v. Meadows green wva · 1948 2 sentences 1962Parrish v. Parrish, 258 Ala. 13 , 61 So.2d 130 ; Bender v. Kaelin, 257 Ky. 783 , 79 S.W.2d 250 ; Law v. Meadows, 131 W. 1962Parrish v. Parrish, 258 Ala. 13 , 61 So.2d 130 ; Bender v. Kaelin, 257 Ky. 783 , 79 S.W.2d 250 ; Law v. Meadows, 131 W.	1	1962–1962
State Tax Commission v. Eagle-Picher Mining & Smelting Co. neutral ariz · 1951 1 sentence 1955For example, we said in State Tax Commission v. Quebedeaux Chevrolet, supra, after an extended discussion of the nature of the Excise Revenue Act: “In conclusion we hold: (1) that the Act does not impose a tax upon the purchaser nor upon sales, but rather places a tax upon the seller for the privilege of engaging in business and fixes the gross income from sales as the base for computing the tax, [Citation of cases] ; (2) that the Act makes the tax the direct obligation of the retailer and not that of the consumer; (3) that there is no statutory authority for the retailer attempting to constit	1	1955–1955

Where else courts name it

TX 17 (1881–2008) PA 8 (1914–2023) AZ 8 (1951–2004) NY 6 (1955–2009) DE 6 (2018–2025) MO 5 (1981–2024) GA 5 (1970–2011) NJ 4 (1995–2015) FL 4 (1965–2021) CA 4 (1976–2022) IL 4 (1981–2024) UT 4 (1933–2020) NM 4 (2011–2024) MI 4 (1955–2007) IA 3 (1902–1999) OR 3 (1949–2016) SD 3 (2008–2008) MT 3 (1925–2003) WA 3 (1922–2008) CO 2 (1974–1986) WV 2 (1922–1936) VA 2 (1995–2000) OK 2 (1945–1991) NE 2 (1922–1972) OH 2 (2003–2006) AL 2 (1968–1984) LA 2 (1956–1994) TN 2 (1996–2024)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check