Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Ellis v. Valley National Bank, 609 P.2d 1073.

62 citing documents.

STEPHAN v. BERTZ Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
STEPHAN v. BERTZ Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
ANDRICH v. BRENNAN Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
ANDRICH v. BRENNAN Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
We review the denial of leave to amend a pleading for an abuse of discretion, In re Torstenson’s Est., but review de novo whether a request to amend is futile, presuming all well-pled factual allegations in the proposed amendment to be true, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, 254 Ariz. at 416, ¶ 22.
Champagne v. Bozer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Champagne v. Bozer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Potter v. Ehrich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Potter v. Ehrich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Potter v. Ehrich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
See In re Torstenson’s Est., (The court should not grant leave to amend if the proposed amended pleading is “legally insufficient” on its face.)
Potter v. Ehrich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
(“Cases may be consolidated in the trial court’s discretion, and we will not disturb such an order unless the court abused its discretion.”); In re Torstenson’s Est., (“A motion for leave to amend a pleading is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court .
Potter v. Meza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Potter v. Meza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Matter of Torstenson’s Est., (“A motion for leave to amend a pleading is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court[.]”).
Lattin v. Shamrock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Lattin v. Shamrock Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
“A motion for leave to amend a pleading is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and we will not overturn the trial court's decision on appeal absent a clear abuse of that discretion.” In re Torstenson’s Estate
Camelot v. Genaro's Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Camelot v. Genaro's Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
In re Estate of Torstenson v. Valley Nat’l Bank
Minotto v. Van Cott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Minotto v. Van Cott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See Matter of Torstenson’s Estate, (finding it was not error for a trial court to fail to allow the plaintiff leave to amend the complaint when the plaintiff made no motion for leave to amend).
Jimenez v. Yuma County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Jimenez v. Yuma County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See In Re Tortstenson’s Estate, (noting “futility of amendment” is a reason to deny a request to amend).
Hall Alpine v. Ashburner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Hall Alpine v. Ashburner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
However, as in this case, when a party moves to amend a pleading that was filed more than twenty-one days before the motion, “the right to amend is not automatic.” Matter of Torstenson’s Estate
Kamela v. One West Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Kamela v. One West Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
In Re Estate of Wyttenbach 193 P.3d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
In Re Estate of Wyttenbach 193 P.3d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
¶ 26 “A motion for leave to amend a pleading is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and we will not overturn the trial court’s decision on appeal absent a clear abuse of that discretion.”
Hayden Business Center Condominiums Ass'n v. Pegasus Development Corp. 105 P.3d 157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Hayden Business Center Condominiums Ass'n v. Pegasus Development Corp. 105 P.3d 157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
In re Torstenson’s Estate, -77 , -77 (App.1980).
Sherman v. First American Title Insurance 38 P.3d 1229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Sherman v. First American Title Insurance 38 P.3d 1229 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Safety, , (no abuse of discretion in denying motion to amend where amendment would have been futile); , (court should freely grant amendment absent such reasons as undue delay, bad faith, or futility of amendment).
Stallings v. Spring Meadows Apartment Complex Ltd. Partnership 886 P.2d 1373 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Stallings v. Spring Meadows Apartment Complex Ltd. Partnership 886 P.2d 1373 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Bogue v. Better-Bilt Aluminum Co. 875 P.2d 1327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Bogue v. Better-Bilt Aluminum Co. 875 P.2d 1327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
The trial court appropriately denies leave to amend a pleading “ “when the proffered amendment could not affect the outcome of the litigation, that is, when on its face it is legally insufficient.’” Matter of Estate of Torstenson v. Valley Nat’l Bank, , (quoting Home Ins.
Bishop v. State, Dept. of Corrections 837 P.2d 1207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Bishop v. State, Dept. of Corrections 837 P.2d 1207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
In re Estate of Torstenson v. Valley Nat’l Bank, -77 , -77 (App.1980).
Blumenthal v. Teets 745 P.2d 181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Blumenthal v. Teets 745 P.2d 181 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
plaintiff respectfully requests leave to replead.” , the right to amend a pleading is not automatic.
Schoolhouse Educational Aids, Inc. v. Haag 699 P.2d 1318 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Schoolhouse Educational Aids, Inc. v. Haag 699 P.2d 1318 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Hall v. Romero 685 P.2d 757 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Hall v. Romero 685 P.2d 757 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
DeMontiney v. Desert Manor Convalescent Center, Inc. 695 P.2d 270 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
DeMontiney v. Desert Manor Convalescent Center, Inc. 695 P.2d 270 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Mat *29 ter of Estate of Torstenson
Rancho Pescado, Inc. v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance 680 P.2d 1235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Rancho Pescado, Inc. v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance 680 P.2d 1235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
See Gary Outdoor Advertising Co. v. Sun Lodge, Inc., 133 Ariz. *179 240
Matter of Estate of Kerr 667 P.2d 1351 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Valley National Bank v. Dykstra 667 P.2d 1351 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Matter of Estate of Kerr 667 P.2d 1351 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
In the case of , this court held: "Informal probate is conclusive as to all persons until superseded by an order [entered] in a formal testacy proceeding," (A.R.S.
Valley National Bank v. Dykstra 667 P.2d 1351 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
In the case of , this court held: “Informal probate is conclusive as to all persons until superseded by an order [entered] in a formal testacy proceeding,” (A.R.S.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by