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.
7 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1976–2015 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Jim Beam Brands Co. v. Franchise Tax Boardgreen2 sentences2013As the California Court of Appeal explained in Jim Beam, a liquidation exception cannot be reconciled with the functional test. 133 Cal.App.4th 514 , 34 Cal.Rptr.3d at 883 . 2013As the California Court of Appeal explained in Jim Beam, a liquidation exception cannot be reconciled with the functional test. 133 Cal.App.4th 514 , 34 Cal.Rptr.3d at 883 . | 2 | 2 |
Texaco-Cities Service Pipeline Co. v. McGawgreen2 sentences2013See Texaco-Cities, 230 Ill.Dec. 991 , 695 N.E.2d at 486 (“The adoption of the functional test also comports with the legislative history and purpose behind the Act.”). 2013See Texaco-Cities, 230 Ill.Dec. 991 , 695 N.E.2d at 486 (“The adoption of the functional test also comports with the legislative history and purpose behind the Act.”). | 1 | 2 |
Challenge, Inc. v. State Ex Rel. Corbingreen2 sentences2015Corbin, 138 Ariz. 200, 204 , 673 P.2d 944, 948 (App. 1983) (alteration in 9 Appellants also argue that as it relates to their estoppel by inducement and equitable estoppel arguments, the superior court erred in denying their motion under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f), seeking more time to conduct discovery about the Defendants’ motivation which would enable them to show the Defendants acted maliciously. 2015Corbin, 138 Ariz. 200, 204 , 673 P.2d 944, 948 (App. 1983) (alteration in 9 Appellants also argue that as it relates to their estoppel by inducement and equitable estoppel arguments, the superior court erred in denying their motion under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f), seeking more time to conduct discovery about the Defendants’ motivation which would enable them to show the Defendants acted maliciously. | 1 | 1 |
Harris Corp. v. Arizona Department of Revenuegreen2 sentences2013Harris, 233 Ariz. at 384, ¶ 26 , 312 P.3d 1143 . 2013Harris, 233 Ariz. at 384, ¶ 26 , 312 P.3d 1143 . | 1 | 1 |
Davis v. Arizona Department of Revenuegreen2 sentences2013See Davis v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, 197 Ariz. 527, 530, ¶ 15 , 4 P.3d 1070, 1073 (App.2000) (noting the legislature had several years to respond to a Department regulation if it disagreed). ¶ 22 Moreover, this interpretation also better reflects the realities of taxing a property asset over time. 2013See Davis v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, 197 Ariz. 527, 530, ¶ 15 , 4 P.3d 1070, 1073 (App.2000) (noting the legislature had several years to respond to a Department regulation if it disagreed). ¶ 22 Moreover, this interpretation also better reflects the realities of taxing a property asset over time. | 1 | 1 |
Lenox, Inc. v. Tolsongreen2 sentences2013“The key inquiry under the functional test should be the relationship of the assets acquired, managed, or disposed of to the taxpayer’s existing business at the time the income was realized, not to some future business operations that may be funded by the proceeds from the property.” Hellerstein ¶ 9.05[2][b], at S9-30 (emphasis in original) (criticizing Lenox, Inc. v. Tolson, 353 N.C. 659 , 548 S.E.2d 513 (2001)). ¶ 29 Finally, Taxpayer’s interpretation would result in a lack of symmetry. 2013“The key inquiry under the functional test should be the relationship of the assets acquired, managed, or disposed of to the taxpayer’s existing business at the time the income was realized, not to some future business operations that may be funded by the proceeds from the property.” Hellerstein ¶ 9.05[2][b], at S9-30 (emphasis in original) (criticizing Lenox, Inc. v. Tolson, 353 N.C. 659 , 548 S.E.2d 513 (2001)). ¶ 29 Finally, Taxpayer’s interpretation would result in a lack of symmetry. | 1 | 1 |
Kalina v. Fletchergreen2 sentences2004Forrester, 484 U.S. at 224, 108 S.Ct. 538 ; accord Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118, 126-28 , 118 S.Ct. 502 , 139 L.Ed.2d 471 (1997) (applying functional test). ¶ 16 Applying the functional test, we hold that a probation officer’s duty to prepare and file the necessary papers with the court to revoke probation entitles him to absolute immunity for that specific conduct. 2004Forrester, 484 U.S. at 224, 108 S.Ct. 538 ; accord Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118, 126-28 , 118 S.Ct. 502 , 139 L.Ed.2d 471 (1997) (applying functional test). ¶ 16 Applying the functional test, we hold that a probation officer’s duty to prepare and file the necessary papers with the court to revoke probation entitles him to absolute immunity for that specific conduct. | 1 | 1 |
Ohio v. Robertsred2 sentences1990See generally Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. at 66 , 100 S.Ct. at 2539 , 65 L.Ed.2d at 608 ; Robinson, 153 Ariz. at 204 , 735 P.2d at 814 . 1990See generally Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. at 66 , 100 S.Ct. at 2539 , 65 L.Ed.2d at 608 ; Robinson, 153 Ariz. at 204 , 735 P.2d at 814 . | 1 | 1 |
Iseley v. Bucks Countygreen1 sentence1983“In determining whether a prosecutor enjoys absolute immunity from civil liability ... courts must apply a functional analysis to determine whether the prosecutor’s acts fall within the bounds of ‘judicial’ as opposed to ‘investigative or administrative duties.’ ” Iseley v. Bucks County, 549 F.Supp. 160, 166 (E.D.Pa.1982). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
District of Columbia v. Pierce Associates, Inc.
green
1 sentence2013“If the property had an integral function ... its income properly can be apportioned and taxed as business income, even though the transaction itself does not reflect the taxpayer’s normal trade or business.” Pierce Assocs., 462 A.2d at 1131 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
PPG Industries, Inc. v. Department of Revenue
green
2 sentences2013PPG Industries, Inc. v. Dep’t of Revenue illustrates the point. 328 Ill.App.3d 16 , 262 Ill.Dec. 208 , 765 N.E.2d 34 (2002). 2013PPG Industries, Inc. v. Dep’t of Revenue illustrates the point. 328 Ill.App.3d 16 , 262 Ill.Dec. 208 , 765 N.E.2d 34 (2002). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Forrester v. White
green
1 sentence2004Forrester, 484 U.S. at 224, 108 S.Ct. 538 ; accord Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118, 126-28 , 118 S.Ct. 502 , 139 L.Ed.2d 471 (1997) (applying functional test). ¶ 16 Applying the functional test, we hold that a probation officer’s duty to prepare and file the necessary papers with the court to revoke probation entitles him to absolute immunity for that specific conduct. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Robinson
green
2 sentences1990See generally Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. at 66 , 100 S.Ct. at 2539 , 65 L.Ed.2d at 608 ; Robinson, 153 Ariz. at 204 , 735 P.2d at 814 . 1990See generally Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. at 66 , 100 S.Ct. at 2539 , 65 L.Ed.2d at 608 ; Robinson, 153 Ariz. at 204 , 735 P.2d at 814 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Barker v. Wingo
green
2 sentences1976The court stated that “any inquiry into a speedy trial claim necessitates a functional analysis of the right in the particular context of the case; * 407 U.S. at 522 , 92 S.Ct. at 2188, 33 L.Ed.2d at 112 . 1976The court stated that “any inquiry into a speedy trial claim necessitates a functional analysis of the right in the particular context of the case; * 407 U.S. at 522 , 92 S.Ct. at 2188, 33 L.Ed.2d at 112 . | 1 | 1976–1976 |
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.