Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Contempo-Tempe Mobile Home Owners Ass'n v. Steinert, 696 P.2d 1376.

34 citing documents.

Westbrook Rental, LLC v. Michael Goodman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
¶11 “A case is moot when it seeks to determine an abstract question which does not arise upon existing facts or rights.” Contempo-Tempe Mobile Home Owners Ass’n v. Steinert
State v. Hon gordon/owen 544 P.3d 673 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
See generally Contempo-Tempe Mobile Home Owners Ass’n v. Steinert
Williams v. Hon. myers/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
“Appellate courts do not give opinions on moot questions.” Contempo- Tempe Mobile Home Owners Ass’n v. Steinert, (citation omitted).
Nava-Amaya v. Horstman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
See Contempo-Tempe Mobile Home Owners Ass’n v. Steinert
State v. Godoy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
quoting Contempo–Tempe Mobile Home Owners Ass’n v. Steinert
Pierce v. Ducey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶14 A case is moot if an event “ends the underlying controversy and transforms the litigation into ‘an abstract question which does not arise upon existing facts or right.’” ¶ 17 (App. 2016) (quoting Contempo-Tempe Mobile Home Owners Ass’).
Safeway v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
See Contempo-Tempe Mobile Home Owners Ass’n v. Steinert
Kingston v. Kingston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
pp. 2016) (A case becomes moot if “an event occurs that ends the underlying controversy” and transforms the litigation into an abstract question that does not arise upon existing facts or rights.); cf. Contempo-Tempe Mobile Home Owners Ass’n v. 5 KINGSTON v. KINGSTON, et al. Decision of the Court Steinert, (finding that the parties’ stipulation can moot an issue).
Moore v. Moore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
See Contempo-Tempe Mobile Home Owners Ass’n v. Steinert, –230 (App. 1985).
Bruer v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Gregory Real v. Keegan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
“Nor [does this court] act as a fountain of legal advice.” Contempo–Tempe Mobile Home Owners Ass’n v. Steinert
Brionna J. v. Dcs, A.V. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
“A case is moot when it seeks to determine an abstract question which does not arise upon existing facts or rights.” In re MH 2008-000028, ¶ 13 (App. 2009) (quoting Contempo-Tempe Mobile Home Owners Ass’n v. Steinert, ).
J. Ball Trust v. Phx Orchard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
See Contempo-Tempe Mobile Home Owners Ass’n v. Steinert, (“A case is moot when it seeks to determine an abstract question which does not arise upon existing facts or rights.” (citing Freeman v. Wintroath Pumps-Div.
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶7 We will, as a matter of judicial restraint, “dismiss an appeal as moot when our action as a reviewing court will have no effect on the parties,” unless such appeal presents an issue of “great public importance or one capable of repetition yet evading review.” ¶ 5 (App. 2012); see also Contempo-Tempe Mobile Home Owners Ass’n v. Steinert, (appellate courts do not give opinions on questions that “by a change in a condition of affairs” have become moot).
Melinda S. Workman v. Verde Wellness Center, Inc. 382 P.3d 812 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Similarly, a case becomes moot if an event occurs that ends the underlying controversy and transforms the litigation into “an abstract question which does not arise upon existing facts or rights.” Contempo-Tempe Mobile Home Owners Ass’n v. Steinert, see Arpaio v. Maricopa Cty.
Artemchuk v. Chernysh Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See Contempo-Tempe Mobile Home Owners Ass’n v. Steinert, (“A case is moot when it seeks to determine an abstract question which does not arise upon existing facts or rights.”).
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
("A court will not decide a question which is unrelated to an actual controversy or which by a change in a condition of affairs has become moot.").
Baron v. Dillard Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
See Contempo-Tempe Mobile Home Owners Ass’n v. Steinert, (“Appellate courts do not give opinions on moot questions.
Origami v. Connelly Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
See id.; Contempo–Tempe Mobile Home Owners Ass’n v. Steinert
McCammon v. Olson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Owners Ass’n v. City of Sedona, ¶ 5, ( ); see also Contempo-Tempe Mobile Home Owners Ass’n v. Steinert, (noting a question becomes moot through “a change in a condition of affairs”) (citations omitted).
Power v. Gilbert Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
See id; Contempo–Tempe Mobile Home Owners Ass’n v. Steinert
Arlene L. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Relations Bd., (citations omitted); Contempo-Tempe Mobile Home Owners Ass’n v. Steinert
Kondaur Capital Corp. v. Pinal County 330 P.3d 379 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Nor is it our role to “act as a fountain of legal advice.” Contempo-Tempe Mobile Home Owners Ass’n v. Steinert, -30, -79 (App. 1985).
Belen Loan Investors, LLC v. Myers, Baumgardner, Los Luna Highlands 296 P.3d 984 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
17 Tempe Mobile Home Owners Ass’n v. Steinert, (appellate court will not address issues rendered moot by resolution of other claims).
In THE ESTATE OF MARY A. RILEY, AKA MARY AGNES RILEY, AKA MARY AGNES REILLY 266 P.3d 1078 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
See, -28 (App. 2007); see also Contempo- Tempe Mobile Home Owners Ass’n v. Steinert, (appeal moot when “substantive questions raised have already been resolved by the stipulation dismissing the suit with prejudice”).
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 211 P.3d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
(citing Freeman v. Wintroath Pumps-Div.
In re MH 2008-000028 211 P.3d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
“A case is moot when it seeks to determine an abstract question which does not arise upon existing facts or rights.” Contempo-Tempe Mobile Home Owners Ass’n v. Steinert, , (citing Freeman v. Wintroath Pumps-Div.
Gary Filer v. Tohono O'Odham Nation Gaming Enterprise Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
See Contempo-Tempe Mobile Home Owners Ass’n v. Steinert, (“The court is not empowered to decide .
Simpson v. Owens 85 P.3d 478 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Although Simpson has now been allowed bail, making his question a moot issue that we usually would not consider, Contempo-Tempe Mobile Home Owners Ass’n v. Steinert, , we may continue to “consider an appeal that has become moot if there is either an issue of great public importance or an issue capable of repetition yet evading review.” Phoenix Newspapers, , 460 ¶ 12
Way v. State 67 P.3d 1232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
See Contempo-Tempe Mobile Home Owners Ass’n v. Steinert, , (“The court is not empow *156 ered to decide moot questions or abstract propositions.”).
Distinguished Thomas v. City of Phoenix 828 P.2d 1210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
An exception is that a court may decide a moot question or abstract proposition if the issue is one of great “public importance” or one that is “capable of repetition yet evading review.” Contempo-Tempe Mobile Home Owners Ass’n v. Steinert
Exodyne Properties, Inc. v. City of Phoenix 798 P.2d 1382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
See Contempo-Tempe Mobile Home Owners Ass’n v. Steinert
Trus Joist Corp. v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America 735 P.2d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Trus Joist Corp. v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America 735 P.2d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Con-tempo-Tempe Mobile Home Owner’s Ass’ , Ash