Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 505 So. 2d 690 - Bell v. Bryan

505 So. 2d 690 - Bell v. Bryan’s Empirical Analysis

1987

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
July 2011
most recently cited

8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently July 2011

8 state decisions

301987199020002010decided

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.

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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(2) Property owned by the following governmental units, but used by nongovernmental lessees, shall only be exempt from taxation under the following conditions: (b) ... Such leasehold estate shall be taxed only as intangible personal property pursuant to Chapter 199 if rental payments are due in consideration of such leasehold estate. If no rental payments are due pursuant to an agreement creating such leasehold estate, the leasehold shall be taxed as real property. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to exempt personal property, buildings, or other real property improvements owned by the lessee from ad valorem taxation.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “With regard to the taxes to be paid by appellees in 1982 and 1983, the County assessed no tax on the value of the leasehold without improvements. This was apparently taxed by the state as intangible personal property pursuant to Section 196.199(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1981). However, taxes on the improvements made by the lessees/appellees were assessed at the full real property rate. AppellantyTax Collector issued tax certificates on the property to enforce the assessments. Appellees filed a complaint requesting declaratory and injunc-tive relief. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of appellees finding that the real property belonged to the County, thus making tax certificates an improper method of enforcing an assessment, and finding that the assessments should have been at the intangible property rate instead of the real property rate. We affirm on both grounds.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “The trial court correctly determined that the assessments placed on the improvements to the subject property were erroneous and should have been determined at the intangible personal property rate pursuant to the above quoted section.”
    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.