Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Modular Systems, Inc. v. Naisbitt, 562 P.2d 1080.

39 citing documents.

State v. Ellis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
15 UP-VW v. LUNA Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
15 UP-VW v. LUNA Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Danko v. Csontos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Danko v. Csontos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
See Modular Sys., (holding a failure “to state with any particularity why or how the superior court erred in making [its] rulings and simply conclud[ing] that error was committed” leads to abandonment of the relevant issues on appeal).
Agricann v. Natural Remedy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Agricann v. Natural Remedy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
(quoting Modular Sys., ).
Wells Fargo v. Hoskyns Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Wells Fargo v. Hoskyns Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
See, e.g., Modular Sys., (acknowledging the plaintiffs’ separate claims for breach of a promissory note and breach of a guaranty agreement).
Beauchamp v. Gust Rosenfeld Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Beauchamp v. Gust Rosenfeld Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 62 (App. 2009); Modular Sys., ARCAP 13(a)(7)(A).
Channel v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Channel v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
5th Avenue v. Kahlon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
5th Avenue v. Kahlon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
The trial court found the missing signature rendered the Guaranty incomplete and invalid under Modular Systems, and entered judgment to the guarantors.
Mothersed v. Greenen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Mothersed v. Greenen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(arguing only that court erred is not the same as arguing an issue, so the issue is deemed abandoned).
Carey v. K&M Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Carey v. K&M Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
See Modular Sys., see also Nghiem v. NEC Elec., Inc., 25 F.3d 1437, 1439 (9th Cir. 1994) (an arbitration agreement must be in writing to be enforceable, but the parties need not sign it) (citations omitted).
Don v. Entrust Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Don v. Entrust Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(appellant must state with particularity why or how the trial court erred).
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(court declined to consider matters for which party failed to comply with Rule 13(a)(6)); Modular Sys., STATE v. JOHNSON Decision of the Court ¶13 We review the court’s decision to provide additional instruction to the jury regarding self-defense for an abuse of discretion.
COHEN v. FREY, Fka COHEN Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
COHEN v. FREY, Fka COHEN Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Cf. Modular Sys., (mere conclusory assertions error was committed insufficient to preserve argument on appeal).
Taeger v. CATHOLIC FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVS. 995 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Taeger v. CATHOLIC FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVS. 995 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Marriage of Muchesko v. Muchesko 955 P.2d 21 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Marriage of Muchesko v. Muchesko 955 P.2d 21 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State Ex Rel. Ordway v. Buchanan 741 P.2d 292 Ariz. 1987
State Ex Rel. Ordway v. Buchanan 741 P.2d 292 Ariz. 1987
An issue is abandoned when an appellant fails “to state with any particularity why or how the trial court erred in making these rulings and simply concludes that, error was committed.” Modular Systems, , ( , ).
State ex rel. Ordway v. Buchanan 741 P.2d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State ex rel. Ordway v. Buchanan 741 P.2d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Gibson v. Boyle 679 P.2d 535 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Gibson v. Boyle 679 P.2d 535 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Cf. Modular Systems, , (failure to state with particularity why or how trial court erred in making rulings and simply concluding error was committed is same as not arguing an issue raised on appeal and is deemed abandoned).
Brant v. Hargrove 632 P.2d 978 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Brant v. Hargrove 632 P.2d 978 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
In support of their contention, appellants cite Modular Systems, , in which the court stated: “The general rule is where an instrument has been executed by only a portion of the parties purported to be bound thereby, the instrument is incomplete and never takes effect as a valid contract even against those who have executed it.
Valley Vendors Corp. v. City of Phoenix 616 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Valley Vendors Corp. v. City of Phoenix 616 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980