DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Bayless Investment & Trading Co. v. Bekins Moving & Storage Co., 547 P.2d 1065.

29 citing documents.

  • Francine C. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Francine C. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    & Trading Co. v. Bekins Moving & Storage Co., (when a litigant fails to file an authorized post-judgment motion bringing “the trial court’s attention to the claimed lack of [a specific] finding[]” under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure (“Civil Rule”) 52(a)(2), the issue is waived on appeal); see also Trantor, 179 Ariz. at 301 (“Although this issue is n
  • State v. Chavez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • State v. Chavez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    & Trading Co. v. Bekins Moving & Storage Co., )); (“Failure to argue a claim on appeal constitutes waiver of that claim.”).
  • Logan B. v. Dcs 422 P.3d 1072 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Logan B. v. Dcs 422 P.3d 1072 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    & Trading Co. v. Bekins Moving 10 LOGAN B. v. DCS, et al. Brown, J., Dissenting & Storage Co., ); ¶ 13 (2017) (explaining that waiver is “jurisprudential, not jurisdictional”).
  • Kristina T. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Kristina T. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    & Trading Co. v. Bekins Moving & Storage Co., ).
  • Joel M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Joel M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    & Trading Co. v. Bekins Moving & Storage Co., ).
  • Tyren T., Brittany H. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Tyren T., Brittany H. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    & Trading Co. v. Bekins Moving & Storage Co., ).
  • Martinez v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Martinez v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    & Trading Co. v. Bekins Moving & Storage Co., -71 (1976).
  • Tabatha T. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Tabatha T. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    & Trading Co. v. Bekins Moving & Storage Co., ), waiver aside, the juvenile court “[s]et forth specific findings of fact in support of a finding of dependency.” ARPJC 55(E)(3).1 ¶3 The juvenile court found: [T]he Department has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Mother is
  • Seronde v. bnsf/morris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Seronde v. bnsf/morris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    & Trading Co. v. Bekins Moving & Storage Co., -71 (App. 1976) (lack of required findings in granting preliminary injunction).
  • Reid v. Reid 213 P.3d 353 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • Christy C. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 153 P.3d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • Christy C. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 153 P.3d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    As stated in Bayless Investment & Trading Co. v. Bekins Moving & Storage Co., a party may not “sit back and not call the trial court’s attention to the lack of a specific finding on a critical issue, and then urge on appeal that mere lack of a finding on that critical issue as a grounds for reversal.”
  • Trantor v. Fredrikson 878 P.2d 657 Ariz. 1994
  • Trantor v. Fredrikson 878 P.2d 657 Ariz. 1994
    Bayless Investment & Trading Co. v. Bekins Moving & Storage Co.
  • Trantor v. Fredrikson 861 P.2d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • Trantor v. Fredrikson 861 P.2d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
    § 10-049(B), court held that, even if that statute required trial court to set forth in judgment express finding concerning reasonable cause, plaintiff waived right to urge failure to do so as a basis for reversal where plaintiff failed to object to form of judgment in trial court); Bayless Investment & , (while failure to object to lack of required findings under Rule 52(a), Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, did not deprive appellants of right to question on appeal sufficiency of evidence t
  • McCarthy Western Constructors, Inc. v. Phoenix Resort Corp. 821 P.2d 181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • McCarthy Western Constructors, Inc. v. Phoenix Resort Corp. 821 P.2d 181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
    & Trading Co. v. Bekins Moving & Storage Co.
  • Callanan v. Sun Lakes Homeowners' Ass'n 1, Inc. 656 P.2d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • Callanan v. Sun Lakes Homeowners' Ass'n 1, Inc. 656 P.2d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
    In dealing with a similar question in Bayless Investment & Trading Company v. Bekins Moving & Storage Company, , we stated: “We recognize that under the provisions of Rule 52(b) this failure to object does not deprive appellants of the right to question on appeal the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment entered.