Turken v. Gordon

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, in the context of the constitution’s gift clause, a “forbidden subsidy” is demonstrated by the difference between a public expenditure and what is received in return
• stating that to comply with the Gift Clause, a governmental entity must receive consideration in return for expenditure that “is not so inequitable and unreasonable that it amounts to an abuse of discretion”
• analyzing the “Gift Clause” under article 9, section 7 of the Arizona Constitution which forbids corporate subsides
• prospective application is appropriate when a ruling overturns settled precedent, establishes a new legal principle, or would produce inequitable results if retroactively applied
• “The term consideration has a settled meaning in contract law. It is a performance or return promise that is bargained for in exchange for the promise of the other party.”
• describing commonalities between Gift and Taxation Clauses

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).