Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Air East, Inc. v. Wheatley, 482 P.2d 899.
-
Preferred v. Dimova
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
We have found that an issue was not debatable when “the answer to the questions is clear,” and when the “[t]he record shows so clearly” the answer to the issue raised, Air E.
- state/solano v. Zamora Felix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
- Swenson v. Swenson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
-
Swenson v. Swenson
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
See Air E., Inc., v. Wheatley
- Mapes v. Mapes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
-
Mapes v. Mapes
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
We have found that an issue was not debatable when “the answer to the questions is clear,” and when the “[t]he record shows so clearly” the answer to the issue raised, Air East
- Williams v. ades/lamont Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
- Williams v. ades/lamont Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
- Esparza v. Warner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
-
Esparza v. Warner
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
See Air E., (holding that an issue is not debatable when the record “clearly” resolves it); –21 (1970) (affirming the portion of a judgment raising no debatable issue on appeal).
- Lopez v. Tinnean Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
- Lopez v. Tinnean Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
- Desanto v. Cleverly Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
-
Desanto v. Cleverly
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
decision) (citing Air E., ); see also In re Majidi v. Milkwick, 1 CA-CV 24-0187 FC, 2024 WL 5165446, at *2, ¶ 12 (Ariz. App. Dec.
- Sedillo v. Cooley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
- Sedillo v. Cooley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
- Majidi v. Milkwick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
-
Majidi v. Milkwick
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
decision) (citing Air E., ).
- Luna v. Peinado Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
-
Luna v. Peinado
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
See, e.g., Air East, 5 LUNA v. PEINADO Decision of the Court (App. 1980).
- Murdock v. Bustamante Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
- Murdock v. Bustamante Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
- Mayberry v. Stambaugh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
-
Mayberry v. Stambaugh
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
(emphasis added)); Air E., ("We will assume that the failure to file an answering brief constitutes a confession of reversible error [] if the reasons presented for reversal are 'debatable.'" (citing Tiller, 98 Ariz. at 157; Siemers, 94 Ariz. at 302) (emphasis added)).
- Kline v. Kline 212 P.3d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
-
Kline v. Kline
212 P.3d 902
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
467, 472, Air East, , Peterman-Donnelly Eng’rs & Contractors Corp. v. First Nat’l Bank, 2 Ariz.App.
- Koven v. Saberdyne Systems, Inc. 625 P.2d 907 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
- Koven v. Saberdyne Systems, Inc. 625 P.2d 907 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
- Verdex Steel & Construction Co. v. Board of Supervisors 509 P.2d 240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
- Verdex Steel & Construction Co. v. Board of Supervisors 509 P.2d 240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
- Witherspoon v. Witherspoon 498 P.2d 233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
- Witherspoon v. Witherspoon 498 P.2d 233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972