Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Choisser v. State Ex Rel. Herman, 469 P.2d 493.

63 citing documents.

Semilia v. Semilia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Semilia v. Semilia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Herman, (“[A]n adverse party who fails to respond [to a motion for summary judgment] does so at his peril because uncontroverted evidence favorable to the movant, and from which only one inference can be drawn, will be presumed to be true.”).
Scholtes v. Gonzales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Scholtes v. Gonzales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Water Works v. Jonas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Water Works v. Jonas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Wells Fargo v. Hoskyns Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Wells Fargo v. Hoskyns Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Herman, ); see also Ariz. R. Civ.
McDivitt v. Geico Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
McDivitt v. Geico Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Herman, a party that fails to respond “does so at his peril” because the court may presume that any uncontroverted evidence favorable to the movant, and from which only one inference can be drawn, is true.
Ribitzki v. American Family Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Ribitzki v. American Family Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Scottsdale v. Fortiff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Scottsdale v. Fortiff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Estrada v. Figari Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Estrada v. Figari Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Herman, (“The admonition in Rule 56(e) means that an adverse party who fails to respond does so at his peril because uncontroverted evidence favorable to the movant, and from which only one inference can be drawn, will be presumed to be true.”).
Strategic Development & Construction, Inc. v. 7th & Roosevelt Partners, LLC 226 P.3d 1046 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Strategic Development & Construction, Inc. v. 7th & Roosevelt Partners, LLC 226 P.3d 1046 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Tilley v. Delci 204 P.3d 1082 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Tilley v. Delci 204 P.3d 1082 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Herman, , (emphasis added).
Schwab v. Ames Const. 83 P.3d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Schwab v. Ames Const. 83 P.3d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Zimmerman v. Shakman 62 P.3d 976 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Zimmerman v. Shakman 62 P.3d 976 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Herman, , (“A failure to respond to the motion with a written memorandum or opposing affidavits cannot, by itself, entitle the movant to summary judgment.”).
Mohave Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Byers 942 P.2d 451 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Mohave Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Byers 942 P.2d 451 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Herman, , (A court should consider a verified complaint in determining whether fact issues preclude summary judgment.); King v. Dogan, 31 F.3d 344, 345 (5th Cir.1994); , (A party need not attach documents in suppo
City of Phoenix v. Leroy's Liquors, Inc. 868 P.2d 958 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
City of Phoenix v. Leroy's Liquors, Inc. 868 P.2d 958 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Herman, , that the rule is well established that “loss of customers, business, or profits are non-compensable as independent items of damages” and that “[e]vidence of such losses are [sic] admissible only for the very limited purpose of tending to show a diminution in the highest and best use of the proper
Gatecliff v. Great Republic Life Insurance 821 P.2d 725 Ariz. 1991
Gatecliff v. Great Republic Life Insurance 821 P.2d 725 Ariz. 1991
Herman, , (citing Pitzen’s Wig Villa v. Pruitt, 11 Ariz.App.
Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. v. City of Phoenix 815 P.2d 932 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. v. City of Phoenix 815 P.2d 932 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Herman, , (loss of customers, business, or profits non-compensable as independent items of damages but only evidence of decrease in property value after taking, , ); State ex rel.
White v. Lewis 804 P.2d 805 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Bianco v. Patterson 768 P.2d 204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Bianco v. Patterson 768 P.2d 204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Gilbert v. Board of Medical Examiners 745 P.2d 617 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Gilbert v. Board of Medical Examiners 745 P.2d 617 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
City of Sierra Vista v. Cochise Enters., Inc. 697 P.2d 1125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
City of Sierra Vista v. Cochise Enters., Inc. 697 P.2d 1125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Matter of Estate of Kerr 667 P.2d 1351 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Valley National Bank v. Dykstra 667 P.2d 1351 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Matter of Estate of Kerr 667 P.2d 1351 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Valley National Bank v. Dykstra 667 P.2d 1351 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
McWain v. Tucson General Hosp. 670 P.2d 1180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
McWain v. Tucson General Hosp. 670 P.2d 1180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Sabel 674 P.2d 316 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Sabel 674 P.2d 316 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Herman, , Pitzen’s Wig Villa v. Pruitt, 11 Ariz.App.
Mish v. Tempe School District No. 3 609 P.2d 73 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Mish v. Tempe School District No. 3 609 P.2d 73 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Herman, , this court articulated the prerequisites that must be established to obtain a summary judgment.
Payson Sanitary District of Gila County v. Zimmerman 581 P.2d 1148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by