Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Dassinger v. Oden, 606 P.2d 41.

26 citing documents.

Yollin v. City of Glendale 191 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Yollin v. City of Glendale 191 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Deer Valley Unified School District No. 97 v. Houser 152 P.3d 490 Ariz. 2007
Deer Valley Unified School District No. 97 v. Houser 152 P.3d 490 Ariz. 2007
¶15 In Dassinger v. Oden, the court of appeals reaffirmed its holding that a claim requires a specific amount and noted that “[w]ithout this information, a claim letter is not a ‘claim’ within the meaning of the statute.”
Young v. City of Scottsdale 970 P.2d 942 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Young v. City of Scottsdale 970 P.2d 942 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
¶ 10 , which rejected a claim because “[tjhere [was] no sum certain contained in the letter which plaintiffs would have been satisfied to settle for.” Id.
Medina v. Arizona Department of Transportation 916 P.2d 1130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Medina v. Arizona Department of Transportation 916 P.2d 1130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Unlike lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, which can be raised at any time including on appeal and cannot be waived, , procedural defects are waived if not raised and preserved in the trial court.
Howland v. State 818 P.2d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Howland v. State 818 P.2d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
For that reason, for example, the claim must contain a “sum certain.”
Hollingsworth v. City of Phoenix 793 P.2d 1129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Hollingsworth v. City of Phoenix 793 P.2d 1129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Four years later, this court narrowed the meaning of “claim.” In Dassinger v. *465 Oden, , the claim letter, after first setting forth a description of the claim, itemized $1,300.00 for medical expenses, $1,800.00 for future medical expenses, and $200.00 for mileage, but did not place a value on the claim for wages, pain and mental anguish, and inconvenience.
Pritchard v. State 788 P.2d 1178 Ariz. 1990
Pritchard v. State 788 P.2d 1178 Ariz. 1990
Lightning "A" Ranch Venture v. Tankersley 779 P.2d 812 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Lightning "A" Ranch Venture v. Tankersley 779 P.2d 812 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Lightning "A" Ranch Venture v. Tankersley 775 P.2d 1102 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Lightning "A" Ranch Venture v. Tankersley 775 P.2d 1102 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Lancaster v. Arizona Board of Regents 694 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Lancaster v. Arizona Board of Regents 694 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Evans v. Arizona Dept. of Corrections 678 P.2d 506 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Evans v. Arizona Dept. of Corrections 678 P.2d 506 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Dassinger v. Oden, 124 * P.2d 41 (App. 1979)
Mammo v. State 675 P.2d 1347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Mammo v. State 675 P.2d 1347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
State v. Brooks, 23 Ariz.App.
Pesqueira v. Pima County Assessor 650 P.2d 1237 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Pesqueira v. Pima County Assessor 650 P.2d 1237 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
(fulfilling statutory requirements for claims against the state is jurisdictional); , (same).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by