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 1 courts 1981–2001 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 |
|---|---|---|
Daggett v. Jackie Fine Arts, Inc.green2 sentences2001See, e.g., id.; Vairo, 153 Ariz. at 17-18 , 734 P.2d at 114-15 ; Daggett v. Jackie Fine Arts, Inc., 152 Ariz. 559, 565-68 , 733 P.2d 1142, 1148-51 (App.1986); Sullivan v. Metro Prods., Inc., 150 Ariz. 573, 576-77 , 724 P.2d 1242, 1245-46 (App.1986); Rose, 128 Ariz. at 212 , 624 P.2d at 890 . ¶20 Substance controls over form when determining whether a financial arrangement constitutes an investment contract because “the definition of a security ‘embodies a flexible rather than a static principle, one that is capable of adaptation to meet the countless and variable schemes devised by those who s 2001See, e.g., id.; Vairo, 153 Ariz. at 17-18 , 734 P.2d at 114-15 ; Daggett v. Jackie Fine Arts, Inc., 152 Ariz. 559, 565-68 , 733 P.2d 1142, 1148-51 (App.1986); Sullivan v. Metro Prods., Inc., 150 Ariz. 573, 576-77 , 724 P.2d 1242, 1245-46 (App.1986); Rose, 128 Ariz. at 212 , 624 P.2d at 890 . ¶20 Substance controls over form when determining whether a financial arrangement constitutes an investment contract because “the definition of a security ‘embodies a flexible rather than a static principle, one that is capable of adaptation to meet the countless and variable schemes devised by those who s | 1 | 2 |
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Life Partners, Incorporated and Brian D. Pardogreen2 sentences2001Under the Howey test, as here, the pre-sale activities were sufficient to classify the transaction as an investment contract. *104 ¶ 33 We disagree with the statement in Life Partners that investors’ profits from viatical settlements “depend[ ] entirely upon the mortality of the insured,” 87 F.3d at 548 , and, that in such a situation, a potential investor’s “need for federal securities regulation is greatly diminished.” Id. at 547 . 2001Under the Howey test, as here, the pre-sale activities were sufficient to classify the transaction as an investment contract. *104 ¶ 33 We disagree with the statement in Life Partners that investors’ profits from viatical settlements “depend[ ] entirely upon the mortality of the insured,” 87 F.3d at 548 , and, that in such a situation, a potential investor’s “need for federal securities regulation is greatly diminished.” Id. at 547 . | 1 | 1 |
Rose v. Dobrasgreen2 sentences2001See, e.g., id.; Vairo, 153 Ariz. at 17-18 , 734 P.2d at 114-15 ; Daggett v. Jackie Fine Arts, Inc., 152 Ariz. 559, 565-68 , 733 P.2d 1142, 1148-51 (App.1986); Sullivan v. Metro Prods., Inc., 150 Ariz. 573, 576-77 , 724 P.2d 1242, 1245-46 (App.1986); Rose, 128 Ariz. at 212 , 624 P.2d at 890 . ¶20 Substance controls over form when determining whether a financial arrangement constitutes an investment contract because “the definition of a security ‘embodies a flexible rather than a static principle, one that is capable of adaptation to meet the countless and variable schemes devised by those who s 2001See, e.g., id.; Vairo, 153 Ariz. at 17-18 , 734 P.2d at 114-15 ; Daggett v. Jackie Fine Arts, Inc., 152 Ariz. 559, 565-68 , 733 P.2d 1142, 1148-51 (App.1986); Sullivan v. Metro Prods., Inc., 150 Ariz. 573, 576-77 , 724 P.2d 1242, 1245-46 (App.1986); Rose, 128 Ariz. at 212 , 624 P.2d at 890 . ¶20 Substance controls over form when determining whether a financial arrangement constitutes an investment contract because “the definition of a security ‘embodies a flexible rather than a static principle, one that is capable of adaptation to meet the countless and variable schemes devised by those who s | 1 | 1 |
Nutek Information Systems, Inc. v. Arizona Corp. Commissiongreen2 sentences2001See, e.g., id.; Vairo, 153 Ariz. at 17-18 , 734 P.2d at 114-15 ; Daggett v. Jackie Fine Arts, Inc., 152 Ariz. 559, 565-68 , 733 P.2d 1142, 1148-51 (App.1986); Sullivan v. Metro Prods., Inc., 150 Ariz. 573, 576-77 , 724 P.2d 1242, 1245-46 (App.1986); Rose, 128 Ariz. at 212 , 624 P.2d at 890 . ¶20 Substance controls over form when determining whether a financial arrangement constitutes an investment contract because “the definition of a security ‘embodies a flexible rather than a static principle, one that is capable of adaptation to meet the countless and variable schemes devised by those who s 2001See, e.g., id.; Vairo, 153 Ariz. at 17-18 , 734 P.2d at 114-15 ; Daggett v. Jackie Fine Arts, Inc., 152 Ariz. 559, 565-68 , 733 P.2d 1142, 1148-51 (App.1986); Sullivan v. Metro Prods., Inc., 150 Ariz. 573, 576-77 , 724 P.2d 1242, 1245-46 (App.1986); Rose, 128 Ariz. at 212 , 624 P.2d at 890 . ¶20 Substance controls over form when determining whether a financial arrangement constitutes an investment contract because “the definition of a security ‘embodies a flexible rather than a static principle, one that is capable of adaptation to meet the countless and variable schemes devised by those who s | 1 | 1 |
Sullivan v. Metro Productions, Inc.green2 sentences2001See, e.g., id.; Vairo, 153 Ariz. at 17-18 , 734 P.2d at 114-15 ; Daggett v. Jackie Fine Arts, Inc., 152 Ariz. 559, 565-68 , 733 P.2d 1142, 1148-51 (App.1986); Sullivan v. Metro Prods., Inc., 150 Ariz. 573, 576-77 , 724 P.2d 1242, 1245-46 (App.1986); Rose, 128 Ariz. at 212 , 624 P.2d at 890 . ¶20 Substance controls over form when determining whether a financial arrangement constitutes an investment contract because “the definition of a security ‘embodies a flexible rather than a static principle, one that is capable of adaptation to meet the countless and variable schemes devised by those who s 2001See, e.g., id.; Vairo, 153 Ariz. at 17-18 , 734 P.2d at 114-15 ; Daggett v. Jackie Fine Arts, Inc., 152 Ariz. 559, 565-68 , 733 P.2d 1142, 1148-51 (App.1986); Sullivan v. Metro Prods., Inc., 150 Ariz. 573, 576-77 , 724 P.2d 1242, 1245-46 (App.1986); Rose, 128 Ariz. at 212 , 624 P.2d at 890 . ¶20 Substance controls over form when determining whether a financial arrangement constitutes an investment contract because “the definition of a security ‘embodies a flexible rather than a static principle, one that is capable of adaptation to meet the countless and variable schemes devised by those who s | 1 | 1 |
Mordaunt v. Incomcogreen2 sentences1986See, Mordaunt v. Incomco, 686 F.2d 815 (1982). 1986See, Mordaunt v. Incomco, 686 F.2d 815 (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 |
|---|---|---|
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 93,748 Securities and Exchange Commission v. Glenn W. Turner Enterprises, Inc.
green
2 sentences1986The Ninth Circuit, in Turner Enterprises, supra, noted that the word “solely” in the Howey test is not to be read as a literal limitation on the definition. 1986The Ninth Circuit, in Turner Enterprises, supra, noted that the word “solely” in the Howey test is not to be read as a literal limitation on the definition. | 2 | 1981–1986 |
Securities and Exchange Commission v. W. J. Howey Co.
green
2 sentences2001Life Partners falls squarely within this category. ¶ 29 Life Partners disregards the premise underlying the Howey test — that is, that the statutory definition of “security” “embodies a . flexible rather than a static principle, one that is capable of adaptation to meet the countless and variable schemes devised by those who seek the use of the money of others on the promise of profits.” Howey, 328 U.S. at 299 , 66 S.Ct. 1100 . 2001Life Partners falls squarely within this category. ¶ 29 Life Partners disregards the premise underlying the Howey test — that is, that the statutory definition of “security” “embodies a . flexible rather than a static principle, one that is capable of adaptation to meet the countless and variable schemes devised by those who seek the use of the money of others on the promise of profits.” Howey, 328 U.S. at 299 , 66 S.Ct. 1100 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Forman
green
2 sentences2001Turner Enterprises and United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Forman, 421 U.S. 837 , 95 S.Ct. 2051 , 44 L.Ed.2d 621 (1975), is more consistent with the view that pre-investment entrepreneurial or managerial activities may satisfy the third prong of the Howey test under appropriate circumstances. 2001Turner Enterprises and United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Forman, 421 U.S. 837 , 95 S.Ct. 2051 , 44 L.Ed.2d 621 (1975), is more consistent with the view that pre-investment entrepreneurial or managerial activities may satisfy the third prong of the Howey test under appropriate circumstances. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Vairo v. Clayden
green
2 sentences2001See, e.g., id.; Vairo, 153 Ariz. at 17-18 , 734 P.2d at 114-15 ; Daggett v. Jackie Fine Arts, Inc., 152 Ariz. 559, 565-68 , 733 P.2d 1142, 1148-51 (App.1986); Sullivan v. Metro Prods., Inc., 150 Ariz. 573, 576-77 , 724 P.2d 1242, 1245-46 (App.1986); Rose, 128 Ariz. at 212 , 624 P.2d at 890 . ¶20 Substance controls over form when determining whether a financial arrangement constitutes an investment contract because “the definition of a security ‘embodies a flexible rather than a static principle, one that is capable of adaptation to meet the countless and variable schemes devised by those who s 2001See, e.g., id.; Vairo, 153 Ariz. at 17-18 , 734 P.2d at 114-15 ; Daggett v. Jackie Fine Arts, Inc., 152 Ariz. 559, 565-68 , 733 P.2d 1142, 1148-51 (App.1986); Sullivan v. Metro Prods., Inc., 150 Ariz. 573, 576-77 , 724 P.2d 1242, 1245-46 (App.1986); Rose, 128 Ariz. at 212 , 624 P.2d at 890 . ¶20 Substance controls over form when determining whether a financial arrangement constitutes an investment contract because “the definition of a security ‘embodies a flexible rather than a static principle, one that is capable of adaptation to meet the countless and variable schemes devised by those who s | 1 | 2001–2001 |
John D. Williamson, Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross v. Gordon G. Tucker, Defendants-Appellees-Cross
green
2 sentences1998Id. at 422-23 . 1998Id. at 422-23 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Reves v. Ernst & Young
green
2 sentences1996Reves v. Ernst & Young, 494 U.S. at 64 , 110 S.Ct. at 950 . 1996Reves v. Ernst & Young, 494 U.S. at 64 , 110 S.Ct. at 950 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Lavelle v. United States
green
2 sentences1981Turner Enterprises, Inc., 474 F.2d 476 (9th Cir. 1973), cert. den. 414 U.S. 821 , 94 S.Ct. 117 , 38 L.Ed.2d 53 (1973), the court interpreted the third prong of the Howey test in a flexible and remedial fashion. 1981Turner Enterprises, Inc., 474 F.2d 476 (9th Cir. 1973), cert. den. 414 U.S. 821 , 94 S.Ct. 117 , 38 L.Ed.2d 53 (1973), the court interpreted the third prong of the Howey test in a flexible and remedial fashion. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
State v. Seigler
green
2 sentences1981Turner Enterprises, Inc., 474 F.2d 476 (9th Cir. 1973), cert. den. 414 U.S. 821 , 94 S.Ct. 117 , 38 L.Ed.2d 53 (1973), the court interpreted the third prong of the Howey test in a flexible and remedial fashion. 1981Turner Enterprises, Inc., 474 F.2d 476 (9th Cir. 1973), cert. den. 414 U.S. 821 , 94 S.Ct. 117 , 38 L.Ed.2d 53 (1973), the court interpreted the third prong of the Howey test in a flexible and remedial fashion. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.