Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Ferris v. Hawkins, 660 P.2d 1256.

32 citing documents.

Barrett v. Landmark Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Barrett v. Landmark Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Action Fund v. Citizens Clean Elections Comm’n, ¶ 24 (2023); (quotation and citation omitted).
Legacy Foundation Action v. Citizens Clean Election Ariz. 2023
Legacy Foundation Action v. Citizens Clean Election Ariz. 2023
See Ferris v. 11 (stating that issue preclusion does not apply when “there is some overriding consideration of fairness to a litigant, which the circumstances of the particular case would dictate” ()).
Abc v. Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Abc v. Maricopa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
encourage reliance on adjudication,” (quoting Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94 (1980)), the doctrine of issue preclusion bars a party from relitigating an issue or fact that it “has previously litigated to a determination on the merits in another action,” Gilbert v. Bd.
Crosby-Garbotz v. Hon. fell/state Ariz. 2019
Crosby-Garbotz v. Hon. fell/state Ariz. 2019
Crosby-Garbotz v. Fell 418 P.3d 1112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
Crosby-Garbotz v. Fell 418 P.3d 1112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
¶ 11 In denying Crosby's motion, the respondent judge appeared to rely primarily on Ferris v. Hawkins , , which this court decided almost a decade before Fitzgerald .
In Re Marriage of Gibbs 258 P.3d 221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Gibbs v. Gibbs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
In Re Marriage of Gibbs 258 P.3d 221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Gibbs v. Gibbs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Tripati v. FORWITH 219 P.3d 291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Tripati v. FORWITH 219 P.3d 291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
(“Principles of issue preclusion should not be applied, however, where ‘there is some overriding consideration of fairness to a litigant, which the circumstances of the particular case would dictate.’ ”) (
Picaso v. Tucson Unified School District 154 P.3d 364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Picaso v. Tucson Unified School District 154 P.3d 364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Courts will not apply issue preclusion “where 'there is some overriding consideration of fairness to a litigant, which the circumstances of the particular case would dictate.’ ” , quoting Di Orio v. City of Scottsdale, 2 Ariz.App.
Hullett v. Cousin 63 P.3d 1029 Ariz. 2003
Hullett v. Cousin 63 P.3d 1029 Ariz. 2003
(“Principles of issue preclusion should not be applied, however, where ‘there is some overriding consideration of fairness to a litigant, which the circumstances of the particular case would dictate.’”) (quoting Di Orio v. City of Scottsdale, 2 Ariz. App. 329, 332
Smith v. Cigna HealthPlan 52 P.3d 205 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Smith v. Cigna HealthPlan 52 P.3d 205 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
duPont deNemours & 10 Co., 443 F.2d 125, 128 (6th Cir. 1971); -32, -59 (App. 1983).
Hawkins v. State, Dept. of Economic SEC. 900 P.2d 1236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
Hawkins v. State, Dept. of Economic SEC. 900 P.2d 1236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
(quoting Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94 , 101 S.Ct.
Circle K Corp. v. Industrial Commission 880 P.2d 642 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Circle K Corp. v. Industrial Commission 880 P.2d 642 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Walker 768 P.2d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Walker 768 P.2d 668 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
(where the amount at issue in the first action was $1,530.00 and the amount at issue in the second action was $17,715.77, the court observed that the state may, from an objective standpoint, have lacked the incentive to litigate the first case fully); Red Bluff Mines, Inc. v. Industrial Comm
Wetzel v. Arizona State Real Estate Department 727 P.2d 825 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Wetzel v. Arizona State Real Estate Department 727 P.2d 825 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
(doctrine of collateral estoppel is inapplicable where there exists some consideration overriding principles of fairness to a litigant).
Red Bluff Mines, Inc. v. Industrial Commission 696 P.2d 1348 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Red Bluff Mines, Inc. v. Industrial Commission 696 P.2d 1348 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
As Comment j to Restatement § 28 points out, “the amount in controversy in the first action may have been so small in relation to the amount in controversy in the second that preclusion would be plainly unfair.”