Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Crook v. Anderson, 565 P.2d 908.

54 citing documents.

McCall v. Arvidson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
McCall v. Arvidson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
(stating "the parties cannot add exhibits, depositions, or affidavits to support their position" on appeal from summary judgment).
Coulter v. Grant Thornton, LLP 388 P.3d 834 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Coulter v. Grant Thornton, LLP 388 P.3d 834 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Co., (negligent misrepresentation); (breach of fiduciary duty).
Snyder v. banner/goel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Snyder v. banner/goel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
See Rule 12(b)(6) (motions to dismiss); 12(c) (motions for judgment on the pleadings)
State Ex Rel. Goddard v. WESTERN UNION FINANCIAL SERVICES INC. 166 P.3d 916 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State Ex Rel. Goddard v. WESTERN UNION FINANCIAL SERVICES INC. 166 P.3d 916 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
-04 , -10 (App.1977); , n. 5 , , 805 n. 5 (App.2007).
Gorney v. Meaney Rincon Orthopedic Associates, P.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Gorney v. Meaney Rincon Orthopedic Associates, P.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
-04, -10 (App. 1977) (on appeal from summary judgment, parties cannot produce new affidavits to secure reversal of lower court’s determination).
Matter of Residence at 15453 No. 2nd Ave. 912 P.2d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State ex rel. Woods v. Sigman 912 P.2d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Matter of Residence at 15453 No. 2nd Ave. 912 P.2d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
12(c); , the transcript in essence neither added to nor subtracted from the pleadings and need not be treated as a motion for summary judgment.
State ex rel. Woods v. Sigman 912 P.2d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
12(c); , the transcript in essence neither added to nor subtracted from the *37 pleadings and need not be treated as a motion for summary judgment.
In the Matter of Estates of Spear 845 P.2d 491 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
In the Matter of Estates of Spear 845 P.2d 491 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Harrington v. BEAUCHAMP ENTERPRISES 761 P.2d 1022 Ariz. 1988
Harrington v. BEAUCHAMP ENTERPRISES 761 P.2d 1022 Ariz. 1988
Shamrock Foods Co. v. City of Phoenix 757 P.2d 80 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Shamrock Foods Co. v. City of Phoenix 757 P.2d 80 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Contempo Const. v. MT. STATES T. & T. CO. 736 P.2d 13 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Contempo Const. v. MT. STATES T. & T. CO. 736 P.2d 13 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Fendler v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.
Molever v. Roush 732 P.2d 1105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Molever v. Roush 732 P.2d 1105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Roberts v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 705 P.2d 1335 Ariz. 1985
Roberts v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 705 P.2d 1335 Ariz. 1985
Stratton v. Inspiration Consolidated Copper Co. 683 P.2d 327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Stratton v. Inspiration Consolidated Copper Co. 683 P.2d 327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Carefree Improvement Ass'n v. City of Scottsdale 649 P.2d 985 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Carefree Improvement Ass'n v. City of Scottsdale 649 P.2d 985 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Three Phoenix Co. v. Pace Industries, Inc. 659 P.2d 1271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Three Phoenix Co. v. Pace Industries, Inc. 659 P.2d 1271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Fendler v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 636 P.2d 1257 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Fendler v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 636 P.2d 1257 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Torrez v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 635 P.2d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Torrez v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 635 P.2d 511 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Seven G Ranching Co. v. Stewart Title & Trust 627 P.2d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Seven G Ranching Co. v. Stewart Title & Trust 627 P.2d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Cote v. A. J. Bayless Markets, Inc. 626 P.2d 602 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Cote v. A. J. Bayless Markets, Inc. 626 P.2d 602 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Roosen v. Schaffer 621 P.2d 33 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Roosen v. Schaffer 621 P.2d 33 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
1 , in which this court held: On appeal, from a summary judgment, “the parties cannot add exhibits, depositions, or affidavits to support their position nor can they advance new theories or raise new issues in order to secure a reversal of the lower court’s determination.” 115 Ariz. at 403-04
O'Malley Lumber Co. v. Riley 613 P.2d 629 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
O'Malley Lumber Co. v. Riley 613 P.2d 629 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Sullins v. Third & Catalina Construction Partnership 602 P.2d 495 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Sullins v. Third & Catalina Construction Partnership 602 P.2d 495 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
this Court stated that “[o]n appeal, from summary judgment, ‘the parties cannot * * advance new theories or raise new issues in order to secure a reversal of the lower court’s determination.’ (Citations omitted.)” In light of Crook , we will decline articulating any detailed analysis of this
Conner v. El Paso Natural Gas Co. 599 P.2d 247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Conner v. El Paso Natural Gas Co. 599 P.2d 247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Hegel v. O'Malley Ins. Co., Inc. 593 P.2d 275 Ariz. 1979
Hegel v. O'Malley Ins. Co., Inc. 593 P.2d 275 Ariz. 1979
“On appeal, from a summary judgment, ‘the parties cannot add exhibits, depositions, or affidavits to support their position nor can they advance new theories or raise new issues in order to secure a reversal of the lower court’s determination.’ ”