imposition privilege (Arizona) · Go Syfert
← Arizona issues

imposition privilege in Arizona

6 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1960–2015 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.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Tallent v. National General Insurancegreen
ariz · 1996 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
2 sentences

2015See Tallent, 185 Ariz. at 268 , 915 P.2d at 667 (“The imposition of a requirement for an explanation of coverage is, we believe, both unwarranted by the statute and unwise.”); accord Ballesteros v. Am.

2015See Tallent, 185 Ariz. at 268 , 915 P.2d at 667 (“The imposition of a requirement for an explanation of coverage is, we believe, both unwarranted by the statute and unwise.”); accord Ballesteros v. Am.

11
Tallent v. National General Insurancegreen
arizctapp · 1995 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996
1 sentence

1996The trial court apparently believed that an insurer could “merely state” a sort of shorthand definition of UIM, while the court of appeals felt that “[i]n most cases ... only a sentence or two would be necessary to explain UIM.” Tallent, 183 Ariz. at 307, 309 , 903 P.2d at 615, 617 .

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
New Mexico v. Mescalero Apache Tribe green
scotus · 1983
2 sentences

1997Mescalero, 462 U.S. at 334 , 103 S.Ct. at 2386 .

1997Mescalero, 462 U.S. at 334 , 103 S.Ct. at 2386 .

11997–1997
City of Phoenix v. West Publishing Co. green
arizctapp · 1985
2 sentences

1989We find the facts of this case to be clearly distinguishable from City of Phoenix v. West Publishing Co., 148 Ariz. 31 , 712 P.2d 944 (App.1985), in which this court found that West’s activities within Phoenix were insufficient to justify the City’s imposition of a privilege license tax on business activities within its city limits.

1989We find the facts of this case to be clearly distinguishable from City of Phoenix v. West Publishing Co., 148 Ariz. 31 , 712 P.2d 944 (App.1985), in which this court found that West’s activities within Phoenix were insufficient to justify the City’s imposition of a privilege license tax on business activities within its city limits.

11989–1989
Smith v. Goodman green
arizctapp · 1967
2 sentences

1972Smith v. Goodman, 6 Ariz.App. 168 , 430 P.2d 922 (1967).

1972Smith v. Goodman, 6 Ariz.App. 168 , 430 P.2d 922 (1967).

11972–1972
State Tax Commission v. Murray Co. of Texas, Inc. green
ariz · 1960
2 sentences

1960We held in our decision of March 30, 1960 [ 87 Ariz. 268, 273 , 350 P.2d 674, 678 ] : “This fact [consignment of gin repair parts] therefore when taken into consideration with the other facts above-related we believe is insufficient to constitute a localization of its activities in the State of Arizona to to the degree that we can say its sale of gins and steel buildings in the manner stated in the stipulation of fact, had the effect of transmuting what would otherwise be purely an interstate transaction into an intrastate transaction and subject it to the imposition of the privilege sales tax

1960We held in our decision of March 30, 1960 [ 87 Ariz. 268, 273 , 350 P.2d 674, 678 ] : “This fact [consignment of gin repair parts] therefore when taken into consideration with the other facts above-related we believe is insufficient to constitute a localization of its activities in the State of Arizona to to the degree that we can say its sale of gins and steel buildings in the manner stated in the stipulation of fact, had the effect of transmuting what would otherwise be purely an interstate transaction into an intrastate transaction and subject it to the imposition of the privilege sales tax

11960–1960

Where else courts name it

PA 47 (1938–2024) VA 40 (1955–2025) CA 33 (1936–2024) NY 24 (1956–2020) WA 23 (1939–2023) UT 13 (2006–2024) IN 11 (1976–2011) FL 10 (1974–2011) NJ 10 (1965–2021) CO 9 (1978–2024) OR 9 (1975–2017) TN 9 (1925–2024) LA 9 (1941–2020) MA 7 (1975–2022) TX 7 (1999–2024) AZ 6 (1960–2015) GA 6 (1975–2020) AL 6 (1914–2006) NM 5 (1927–2023) MT 5 (2012–2026) NC 5 (2010–2022) MI 5 (1980–2016) MN 4 (1978–2016) IL 4 (1981–2016) MS 4 (1905–2013) OH 4 (1988–2025) CT 4 (1971–2006) WV 3 (1965–2003) MO 3 (1985–1986) ND 3 (1958–1981) MD 3 (1949–1991) ID 3 (1982–1993) WI 3 (1994–2016) OK 3 (2004–2006) SC 2 (2018–2018) WY 2 (2014–2014) IA 2 (1998–2012) NE 2 (1979–2017) DC 2 (1994–2014) HI 2 (1974–2016) KS 2 (2017–2017) NH 2 (2009–2012)

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