Schultz v. CRYSTAL RIVER THREE PARTICIP.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• rejecting the \property appraiser['s] argu[ment] that there can be no `partial' tax exemptions for property and that the courts cannot `unbundle' and separate out the respective interests of the owners of property\
• in absence of general law requiring payments to tax unit in which plant was located, cities' interest in nuclear power plant was tax exempt under article VII, section 3(a) and section 196.199(2)(c), Florida Statutes
• interest of municipalities in private power plant was tax exempt
• in absence of general law requiring payments to tax unit in which plant was located, cities' interest in nuclear power plant was tax exempt under article VII, section 3(a) and section 196.199 (2)(c), Florida Statutes
• interest of municipalities in private power plant was tax exempt

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Fla. Dept. of Rev. v. City of Gainesville
  Supreme Court of Florida· 2005-12-08· cited 93×
• City of Gainesville v. Crapo
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2007-02-12· cited 5×
• Dept. of Rev. v. City of Gainesville
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2003-11-26· cited 4×
• CAPFA Capital Corp. 2000A v. Donegan
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2006-04-13· cited 4×
• Ago
  Florida Attorney General Reports· 2006-08-03

Cites

4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Sebring Airport Authority v. McIntyre
  Supreme Court of Florida· 1994-08-11· cited 22×
• Hausman v. VTSI, INC.
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1985-12-26· cited 8×
• Ford v. ORLANDO UTILITIES COM'N
  Supreme Court of Florida· 1994-01-06· cited 7×
• Northcutt v. ORLANDO UTILITIES COM'N
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1993-02-19· cited 5×