Cited by

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

171 citing documents.

State v. Alliance Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Alliance Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Adams v. Valley Nat’l Bank of Ariz., (the court prefers to resolve cases on the merits).
Reyes v. pinnacle/standard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Reyes v. pinnacle/standard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
See Adams v. Valley Nat’l Bank of Ariz., (courts prefer to decide each case upon its merits rather than dismissing on procedural grounds).
In the Matter of Colton P. 397 P.3d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
In the Matter of Colton P. 397 P.3d 1037 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Cf. Adams v. Valley Nat’l Bank of Ariz., (stating appellate courts prefer to decide cases on their merits, rather than on procedural grounds).
Joel M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Joel M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
See Adams v. Valley Nat’l Bank of Ariz., (recognizing the preference to decide cases on the merits rather than to dismiss summarily on procedural grounds) ().
Ornstein v. Bank of America Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Ornstein v. Bank of America Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Adams v. Valley Nat’l Bank of Ariz.
Philip P., Katherine J. v. Dcs, V.P. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Philip P., Katherine J. v. Dcs, V.P. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
See Adams v. Valley Nat’l Bank of Ariz., (recognizing preference to decide cases on the merits rather than to dismiss summarily on procedural grounds) ().
Chereka v. Gadissa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Chereka v. Gadissa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
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).
Phoenix-Tucson v. Deetz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Phoenix-Tucson v. Deetz Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Cf. Adams v. Valley Nat’l Bank of Ariz., (App. 8 PHOENIX-TUCSON v. DEETZ et al. Decision of the Court therefore, do not argue that the arbitrator exceeded his powers because he lacked the power to rule on the issues presented for review.
Sessions v. cigna/indemnity Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Sessions v. cigna/indemnity Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
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).
Csizmadia v. Natl peo/the Mint Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Csizmadia v. Natl peo/the Mint Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
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).
Ball v. Maricopa County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Ball v. Maricopa County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See Adams v. Valley Nat’l Bank of Ariz.
Bennett v. Federal Express Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Bennett v. Federal Express Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See Adams v. Valley Nat’l Bank of Ariz., -43, -28 (App. 1984).
Hemming v. mccarthy/arch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Hemming v. mccarthy/arch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
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).
Hawkins v. Blair Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Hawkins v. Blair Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Adams v. Valley Nat’l Bank
Hawkins v. Blair Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Hawkins v. Blair Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Adams v. Valley Nat’l Bank of Ariz.
Jackson White v. Dos Land Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Jackson White v. Dos Land Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See, e.g., Adams v. Valley Nat’l Bank of Ariz., (dismissing an appeal for failure to comply with ARCAP 13).
Cason v. Cason Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Cason v. Cason Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See Adams v. Valley Nat’l Bank of Ariz., (“‘The adversary system of dispensing justice is effective only in the 6 CASON v. CASON Decision of the Court court’s approach under the circumstances and will not second-guess its determination of witne
Tutora v. Dominguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Tutora v. Dominguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
See Adams v. Valley Nat’l Bank of Ariz., see also Gen.
Stazenski v. Nrt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Stazenski v. Nrt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Bank of Ariz., (stating that an appellate court need not “search voluminous records and exhibits to substantiate an appellant’s claims”).
Chandler v. Ellington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Chandler v. Ellington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
See Adams v. Valley Nat’l Bank of Ariz., (stating that an appellate court may decline to perform an advocate’s role and search the record to substantiate an appellant’s claim); see also Gen.
Honig v. Ahcccs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Honig v. Ahcccs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
However, because we generally prefer to decide each case on its merits rather than to dismiss summarily on procedural grounds, see Adams v. Valley Nat’l Bank of Ariz., in our discretion we address the merits of Honig’s argument based on our own review of the record.
City of Phoenix v. Elgin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
City of Phoenix v. Elgin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
See Adams v. Valley Nat’l Bank of Ariz., (noting that we “prefer to decide each case upon its merits rather than to dismiss summarily on procedural grounds”).
Jaffe v. Capital One Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Jaffe v. Capital One Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
However, we “prefer to decide each case upon its merits rather than to dismiss summarily on procedural grounds,” Adams v. Valley Nat’l Bank of Ariz., and exercise our 2Absent material revisions after the relevant dates, we cite the current version of the statutes and rules unless otherwise indicated.
Maestas v. nackard/scf Western Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Comm’n of Ariz., n.2, ¶ 6, n.2 (App. 2007); Adams v. Valley Nat’l Bank of Ariz., 139 3 MAESTAS v. NACKARD/SCF WESTERN Decision of the Court Ariz. 340, 342, (“[C]ourts prefer to decide each case upon its merits rather than to dismiss summarily on procedural grounds.”).
National v. Bodine Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
National v. Bodine Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
See Adams v. Valley Nat’l Bank of Ariz., -43, -28 (App. 1984).
Sandretto v. Payson Healthcare Management, Inc. 322 P.3d 168 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014