4 Ariz. App. 55 - Bade v. Drachman’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
2 district · 59 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently September 2013 · most notably Wilderness World, Inc. v. Department of Revenue (1995), Allen v. Fisher (1977)
2 district · 59 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on 45 Cal. 2d 546 - De Luz Homes, Inc. v. County of San Diego · In Re the Appeals of Kents 2124 Atlantic Ave., Inc. · Matter of Berkovitz v. . Arbib Houlberg · Southern Pacific Company v. Cochise County · Duhame v. State Tax Commission
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““1. Under existing constitutional and statutory provisions is it lawful for a county assessor to systematically and intentionally value one class of property for tax purposes at a certain percentage of its cash value and to value another class of property at a lower percentage ? “2. Did the trial court err in granting injunctive relief for the reason that the taxpayer had an adequate remedy at law ? “3. Did the trial court err in granting equitable relief in that such relief was in violation of A.R.S. § 42-204, either as it existed prior to March 26, 1964, or as amended effective after that date?” Bade v. Drachman (1966) 4 Ariz.App. at 58-59, 417 P.2d at 692. “ ‘general legislative scheme that assessments on all species of property shall be at full cash value.’ ' ( 92 Ariz. 401 , 377 P.2d 774 ).” 4 Ariz.App. at 60, 417 P.2d at 694.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“If we were modifying or overruling a previous judicial decision, or if we were ordering a complete revampment of the assessment rolls, a process that would require substantial time to accomplish, this request [for prospective application] would have some merit. We are doing neither.... When the rights of a taxpayer are established by explicit statutory law, as in this case, we question our authority to deny or postpone relief, unless the financial stability of the taxing body is threatened with destruction as in the Southern Pacific case. We are not convinced that the granting of relief to the taxpayer in this case will substantially impair the financial integrity of either this county or this state.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence““McCluskey held categorically that ‘the plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.’ ( 80 Ariz. 21 , 291 P.2d 794 ). Whether the inadequacy of the remedy provided by A.R.S. § 42-204, subsec. C arises by reason of the uncertainties of recovery, or by virtue of the inadequacy deemed by our Supreme Court to be inherent in any requirement that a taxpayer pay taxes resulting from intentional discriminatory practices before he may be heard to complain of such practices, we need not decide. Suffice it to say, we believe that the trial court was authorized under the McCluskey and Southern Pacific decisions to grant injunctive relief.” Bade v. Drachman (1966) 4 Ariz.App. 55, 61 , 417 P.2d 689, 695 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.