Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Fleitz v. Van Westrienen, 560 P.2d 430.

46 citing documents.

MacKay v. Auto-Owners Ins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
MacKay v. Auto-Owners Ins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Saban v. Ador 418 P.3d 1066 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Saban v. Ador 418 P.3d 1066 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Although a party ordinarily may not appeal an order denying summary judgment, see, the court of appeals may review the denial of a motion for summary judgment if the superior court denied the motion on a point of law, Strojnik v. Gen.
Delong v. Merrill 310 P.3d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Delong v. Merrill 310 P.3d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
And, although deemed admissions may be a basis for granting a motion for summary judgment, that would generally occur where “[a]ppellants made no attempt to seek withdrawal or amendment of the admissions as they could have done.”
Catherine E. Warner v. Southwest Desert Images, LLC Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Catherine E. Warner v. Southwest Desert Images, LLC Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
P. 68(h); (once defendant met “burden of coming forward with evidence” showing it “made an offer of 35 judgment greater than the verdict,” “the burden shifted to [plaintiff] to show the .
Monaco v. HealthPartners of Southern Arizona 995 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Monaco v. HealthPartners of Southern Arizona 995 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
The Monacos counter that the denial of summary judgment cannot be appealed after a final judgment in the same case, , *302 (App.1991)
De La Cruz v. State 961 P.2d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
De La Cruz v. State 961 P.2d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Although the denial of a motion for summary judgment is generally a nonappealable ruling, , the State preserved its ground of appeal on the existence of a duty in its motion for directed verdict.
Hales v. Humana of Arizona, Inc. 923 P.2d 841 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Hales v. Humana of Arizona, Inc. 923 P.2d 841 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Arizona Board of Regents v. Main Street Mesa Associates 891 P.2d 889 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Arizona Board of Regents v. Main Street Mesa Associates 891 P.2d 889 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Matter of One (1) Rolex Brand Man's Watch 860 P.2d 1347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Matter of One (1) Rolex Brand Man's Watch 860 P.2d 1347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Mohave Farms, , -33 , -77 (App.1983)
Hauskins v. McGillicuddy 852 P.2d 1226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Hauskins v. McGillicuddy 852 P.2d 1226 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Woodty v. Weston's Lamplighter Motels 830 P.2d 477 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Woodty v. Weston's Lamplighter Motels 830 P.2d 477 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Stewart v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance 817 P.2d 44 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Stewart v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance 817 P.2d 44 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Peaton 812 P.2d 1002 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Peaton 812 P.2d 1002 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Bryce v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. 783 P.2d 246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Bryce v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. 783 P.2d 246 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Holt v. Utica Mutual Insurance 759 P.2d 617 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Holt v. Utica Mutual Insurance 759 P.2d 617 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Gosewisch v. American Honda Motor Co. 737 P.2d 365 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Gosewisch v. American Honda Motor Co. 737 P.2d 365 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Poleo v. Grandview Equities, Ltd. 692 P.2d 309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Poleo v. Grandview Equities, Ltd. 692 P.2d 309 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Matusik v. Arizona Public Service Co. 684 P.2d 882 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Matusik v. Arizona Public Service Co. 684 P.2d 882 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Finally, , the plaintiff brought suit against driver 1 and driver 2 for injuries which he suffered in a collision between their vehicles.
State v. Roberts 673 P.2d 974 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
State v. Roberts 673 P.2d 974 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Mchave Farms, , O’Donnell v. Maves, *233
J-R Construction Co. v. Paddock Pool Construction Co. 625 P.2d 932 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
J-R Construction Co. v. Paddock Pool Construction Co. 625 P.2d 932 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Fowler v. Great American Insurance 602 P.2d 492 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Fowler v. Great American Insurance 602 P.2d 492 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Golleher v. Horton 583 P.2d 260 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Golleher v. Horton 583 P.2d 260 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
In Re the Marriage of Gove 572 P.2d 458 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
In Re the Marriage of Gove 572 P.2d 458 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
for failure to comply with discovery orders is within the discretion of the court, , it is arguable that the sanction of exclusion should never be imposed on evidence relevant to the issue of custody and welfare of minor children.