DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Adams v. Valley Nat. Bank of Ariz., 678 P.2d 525.

178 citing documents.

  • R & a Smart v. Frank Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    Adam v. Valley Nat’l Bank of Ariz., ().
  • Flury v. Ortiz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • Flury v. Ortiz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    Adams v. Valley Nat'l 2 FLURY v. ORTIZ, et al. Decision of the Court Bank of Ariz.
  • Amanda Campion and James Campion v. City of Tucson 536 P.3d 1232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
  • Amanda Campion and James Campion v. City of Tucson 536 P.3d 1232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
    See Adams v. Valley Nat’l Bank of Ariz., (“We are not required to assume the duties of an advocate and search voluminous records and exhibits to substantiate an appellant’s claims.”).
  • Bucks Financial v. Overley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Bucks Financial v. Overley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    See Adams v. Valley Nat’l Bank of Ariz., (“[C]ourts prefer to decide each case upon its merits rather than to dismiss summarily on procedural grounds[.]”).
  • Swanson v. Swanson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Swanson v. Swanson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Holmes v. Spector Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Holmes v. Spector Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    Adams v. Valley Nat’l Bank of Ariz., -43 (App. 1984).
  • Rgs Diamonds v. Tal Designs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Rgs Diamonds v. Tal Designs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    Adams v. Valley Nat’l Bank of Ariz.
  • Olesen v. daniel/burge Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Olesen v. daniel/burge Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    Adams v. Valley Nat’l Bank of Ariz., -43 (App. 1984).
  • Hunter v. Barna Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Hunter v. Barna Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    Adams v. Valley Nat’l Bank of Ariz.
  • Watkins v. Lane Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Watkins v. Lane Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
    Bank of Ariz., –65 ¶ 6 (2013) (stating that we typically consider waived arguments unsupported by adequate explanation or citations to relevant authorities or the record).
  • Watson v. Peck Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Watson v. Peck Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    See Adams v. Valley Nat’l Bank of Ariz., (recognizing a preference for deciding on merits over summarily dismissing on procedural grounds).
  • Webster v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Webster v. Smith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    Bank of Ariz., - 43 (App. 1984).
  • Avalon Hills v. Lang Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Avalon Hills v. Lang Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Hanger v. Hanger Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Hanger v. Hanger Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    -43 (1984) ("[The Court is] not required to assume the duties of an advocate and search voluminous records and exhibits to substantiate an appellant's claims."); see also United States v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955, 956 (7th Cir. 1991) ("Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in [the record].").
  • Wilson v. Candler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Wilson v. Candler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    Adams v. Valley Nat’l Bank of Ariz., -43 (App. 1984).
  • Martinez v. Colburt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Martinez v. Colburt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    Adams v. Valley Nat’l Bank of Ariz., -43 (App. 1984).
  • Ball v. Adhs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Ball v. Adhs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Neal I. v. Dcs, A.I. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Neal I. v. Dcs, A.I. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    See Adams v. Valley Nat’l Bank of Ariz., (recognizing that courts prefer to decide each case upon its merits rather than dismissing on procedural grounds).
  • Self v. Higher Logic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Self v. Higher Logic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    Adams v. Valley Nat’l Bank of Ariz., -43 (App. 1984).
  • Hernandez v. Orozco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Hernandez v. Orozco Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    Bank of Ariz., (“Based upon the totally deficient briefs filed on behalf of appellant, we have little choice but to dismiss this appeal.”).
  • Jacobs v. Dental Care Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Jacobs v. Dental Care Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    Adams v. Valley Nat’l Bank of Ariz., –43 (App. 1984).
  • Mothershead v. Dulara Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Mothershead v. Dulara Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    Adams v. Valley Nat’l Bank of Ariz., –43 (App. 1984).
  • State v. McEvoy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • State v. McEvoy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    ¶13 This court generally declines “to address issues that are not argued adequately, with appropriate citation to supporting authority.” ¶ 18 (App. 2016); see also ARCAP 13(a)(7)(A) (argument must contain supporting reasons for each contention with citations of legal authorities); Adams v. Valley Nat’l Bank, 6 STATE, et al. v. McEVOY Decision of the Court (App. 1984) (a deficient brief may result in the dismissal of an appeal).
  • Ingersoll v. Abec Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Ingersoll v. Abec Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    Bank of Ariz., (recognizing “courts prefer to decide each case upon its merits rather than to dismiss summarily on procedural grounds”).
  • Jimenez v. Fry's Food Stores Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Jimenez v. Fry's Food Stores Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    Bank, (a deficient brief may result in the dismissal of an appeal).
  • Latif v. Eldilemi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019