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 1980–2021 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Cottonwood Affordable Housing v. Yavapai Countygreen2 sentences2021Maricopa County filed a motion asking the court to enter an order declaring that LIHTC properties must be valued for property tax purposes using market rents charged by conventional complexes. ¶6 The tax court denied Maricopa County’s motion and held that an “LIHTC property [is] to be valued using restricted as opposed to market rents to achieve a full cash value,” citing Cottonwood, 205 Ariz. at 430 (“the restrictions imposed under the LIHTC program . . . must be taken into account” in valuing property). 2021Maricopa County filed a motion asking the court to enter an order declaring that LIHTC properties must be valued for property tax purposes using market rents charged by conventional complexes. ¶6 The tax court denied Maricopa County’s motion and held that an “LIHTC property [is] to be valued using restricted as opposed to market rents to achieve a full cash value,” citing Cottonwood, 205 Ariz. at 430 (“the restrictions imposed under the LIHTC program . . . must be taken into account” in valuing property). | 2 | 2 |
Haberkorn v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.green1 sentence2020See, e.g., Haberkorn v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 5 Ariz. App. 397, 399 (App. 1967) (holding non-lawyer husband not permitted to represent wife in court). | 1 | 1 |
Hawes v. Coopergreen2 sentences1980In our opinion, a case becomes moot when an event occurs, pending an appeal, which renders the relief sought either impossible or without practical effect on the parties to the action: See Hawes v. Cooper, 14 Ariz.App. 88 , 480 P.2d 1005 (1971); Lord v. City of Tucson, 10 Ariz.App. 54 , 455 P.2d 1004 (1969); and Card v. Flegel, 26 Or.App. 783 , 554 P.2d 596 (1976). 1980In our opinion, a case becomes moot when an event occurs, pending an appeal, which renders the relief sought either impossible or without practical effect on the parties to the action: See Hawes v. Cooper, 14 Ariz.App. 88 , 480 P.2d 1005 (1971); Lord v. City of Tucson, 10 Ariz.App. 54 , 455 P.2d 1004 (1969); and Card v. Flegel, 26 Or.App. 783 , 554 P.2d 596 (1976). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cullen v. Auto-Owners Insurance
green
1 sentence2015However, “mere conclusory statements are insufficient to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Id. ¶9 The court granted Maricopa County’s motion to dismiss on the grounds the complaint, as a whole, violated Rule 8. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Tumacacori Mission Land Development, Ltd. v. Union Pacific Railroad Company
green
1 sentence2015Leave to amend should be granted liberally “unless the court finds . . . futility in the amendment.” Id. (citation omitted). ¶25 In its order granting Maricopa County’s motion to dismiss, the trial court gave Plaintiffs permission to file a motion to amend the complaint. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Pinal County v. Pinal County Employee Merit System Commission, Serb
green
2 sentences2005The Pinal County merit commission, under a standard of review similar to the Maricopa County standard, ("arbitrary or taken without reasonable cause"), 211 Ariz. at 16 n. 7, ¶ 9, 116 P.3d at 628 , determined that the officer's termination was shocking to one's sense of fairness and that the termination should be revoked and the officer reinstated to his job. 2005The Pinal County merit commission, under a standard of review similar to the Maricopa County standard, ("arbitrary or taken without reasonable cause"), 211 Ariz. at 16 n. 7, ¶ 9, 116 P.3d at 628 , determined that the officer's termination was shocking to one's sense of fairness and that the termination should be revoked and the officer reinstated to his job. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.
green
2 sentences1995Monell v. Department of Social Servs. of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 , 98 S.Ct. 2018 , 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978)." Defendant Maricopa County's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment dated September 17, 1993 at 8. 1995Monell v. Department of Social Servs. of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 , 98 S.Ct. 2018 , 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978)." Defendant Maricopa County's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment dated September 17, 1993 at 8. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Lord v. City of Tucson
green
2 sentences1980In our opinion, a case becomes moot when an event occurs, pending an appeal, which renders the relief sought either impossible or without practical effect on the parties to the action: See Hawes v. Cooper, 14 Ariz.App. 88 , 480 P.2d 1005 (1971); Lord v. City of Tucson, 10 Ariz.App. 54 , 455 P.2d 1004 (1969); and Card v. Flegel, 26 Or.App. 783 , 554 P.2d 596 (1976). 1980In our opinion, a case becomes moot when an event occurs, pending an appeal, which renders the relief sought either impossible or without practical effect on the parties to the action: See Hawes v. Cooper, 14 Ariz.App. 88 , 480 P.2d 1005 (1971); Lord v. City of Tucson, 10 Ariz.App. 54 , 455 P.2d 1004 (1969); and Card v. Flegel, 26 Or.App. 783 , 554 P.2d 596 (1976). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Card v. Flegel
green
2 sentences1980In our opinion, a case becomes moot when an event occurs, pending an appeal, which renders the relief sought either impossible or without practical effect on the parties to the action: See Hawes v. Cooper, 14 Ariz.App. 88 , 480 P.2d 1005 (1971); Lord v. City of Tucson, 10 Ariz.App. 54 , 455 P.2d 1004 (1969); and Card v. Flegel, 26 Or.App. 783 , 554 P.2d 596 (1976). 1980In our opinion, a case becomes moot when an event occurs, pending an appeal, which renders the relief sought either impossible or without practical effect on the parties to the action: See Hawes v. Cooper, 14 Ariz.App. 88 , 480 P.2d 1005 (1971); Lord v. City of Tucson, 10 Ariz.App. 54 , 455 P.2d 1004 (1969); and Card v. Flegel, 26 Or.App. 783 , 554 P.2d 596 (1976). | 1 | 1980–1980 |