Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Stokes v. Stokes, 694 P.2d 1204.

50 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Anthony Eugene Searight Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2026
State of Arizona v. Anthony Eugene Searight Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2026
ok manifest trial error in precluding important evidence when that ruling was squarely challenged and comprehensively litigated before the trial court on correct legal grounds―and the ultimate ruling has again been 5 STATE v. SEARIGHT Opinion of the Court challenged on appeal.1 (waiver rule “is intended to prevent surprise”).
SHANE NOEL JONES and VICTORIA CRANFORD v. RESPECT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE 517 P.3d 1188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
SHANE NOEL JONES and VICTORIA CRANFORD v. RESPECT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE 517 P.3d 1188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2022
(doctrine of waiver intended to prevent surprise).
Torres v. Jai Dining Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Torres v. Jai Dining Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
This general waiver rule “serves objectives of fair notice, and promotes both the ability to meet issues and judicial efficiency,” Dombey, 150 Ariz. at 482, and is intended to prevent unfair surprise
Graves v. Slawson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Graves v. Slawson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
(noting appellate court may consider issue not raised on appeal in civil case when “facts of a particular case so warrant and the question is one of substantive law presenting no dispute as to the facts”).
Brubacher v. Propaganda Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Brubacher v. Propaganda Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
See, (rejecting conversion claim where “husband’s failure to pay to the wife one-half the amount of his monthly check created a debt which could have been discharged by payment of money generally”).9 III.
Jon D., Kristie W. v. Dcs, C.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Jon D., Kristie W. v. Dcs, C.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
The rule is for the benefit of the party against whom the defense is newly asserted on appeal and is intended to prevent surprise.” JON D., KRISTIE W. v. DCS, C.W.
Desert Palm Surgical Group, P.L.C. v. Petta 343 P.3d 438 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Desert Palm Surgical Group, P.L.C. v. Petta 343 P.3d 438 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Nevertheless, “the rule that issues not objected to at trial are waived is procedural, not jurisdictional, and we may suspend it at our discretion.” (citations omitted); (recognizing that “[the rule] an appealing party may not urge as grounds for reversal a theory which he failed to present below .
State of Arizona v. Ronnie Roy Vera 334 P.3d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Ronnie Roy Vera 334 P.3d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Peace v. Peace Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Peace v. Peace Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Southwest Non-Profit Housing Corporation v. Nowak, Kniffen, Martell 322 P.3d 204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Southwest Non-Profit Housing Corporation v. Nowak, Kniffen, Martell 322 P.3d 204 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Duncan v. Progressive Preferred Ins. Co. 258 P.3d 216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Duncan v. Progressive Preferred Ins. Co. 258 P.3d 216 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
( , ("We may review issues not raised in the trial court when `the record contains facts determinative of an issue which will resolve the action, ...
Fred Nackard Land Co. v. City of Flagstaff 238 P.3d 149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Fred Nackard Land Co. v. City of Flagstaff 238 P.3d 149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
the matter involved is one which affects the general public interest, or where a legal principle, although not suggested by either party, should be adopted on appeal to expedite the enforcement of a right, or redress a wrong.’ ’’ , ( , ).
In Re Andrew C. 160 P.3d 687 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
In Re Andrew C. 160 P.3d 687 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
See Stokes v. *371 Stokes, , (“The exceptions to the general rule operate only where the facts of a particular case so warrant and the question is one of substantive law presenting no dispute as to the facts.”) Having said that, the constitutional argument that the dissent makes here holds no sway.
Harris, Wilson, Angel Team Home Care v. Cochise Health Systems Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Harris, Wilson, Angel Team Home Care v. Cochise Health Systems Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
10 see also Chilton v. Center for Biological Diversity, Inc., (argument waived on appeal when not briefed at trial court level and trial court had no opportunity to consider it).
Liristis v. American Family Mutual Insurance 61 P.3d 22 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Liristis v. American Family Mutual Insurance 61 P.3d 22 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
(the waiver rule “is intended to prevent surprise”).
Universal Marketing & Entertainment, Inc. v. Bank One of Arizona, N.A. 53 P.3d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Universal Marketing & Entertainment, Inc. v. Bank One of Arizona, N.A. 53 P.3d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
at 92-93 , 510 P.2d at 403-04 (emphasis added) (citations omitted); 2
Standard Chartered PLC v. Price Waterhouse 945 P.2d 317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Standard Chartered PLC v. Price Waterhouse 945 P.2d 317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
See, , (recognizing the rule that “arguments not made at the trial court cannot be asserted on appeal” as a procedural rule that the court may suspend at its own discretion) (citations omitted); , (same); see also Dombey v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., , (exercising discretion to consider issue argued at trial but not raised on appeal).
Semple v. Tri-City Drywall, Inc. 838 P.2d 1369 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Semple v. Tri-City Drywall, Inc. 838 P.2d 1369 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
See Brown, 164 Ariz. at 6 , 790 P.2d at 292
Rogan v. Auto-Owners Insurance 832 P.2d 212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Rogan v. Auto-Owners Insurance 832 P.2d 212 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
City of Tempe v. Fleming 815 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
City of Tempe v. Fleming 815 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Dombey v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.
Brown v. Arizona Public Service Co. 790 P.2d 290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Brown v. Arizona Public Service Co. 790 P.2d 290 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
: Normally, an appealing party may not urge as grounds for reversal a theory which he failed to present below.
Gomulka v. Yavapai MacHine & Auto Parts, Inc. 745 P.2d 986 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Gomulka v. Yavapai MacHine & Auto Parts, Inc. 745 P.2d 986 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Cassell v. General Motors Corp. 740 P.2d 496 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Cassell v. General Motors Corp. 740 P.2d 496 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Autoville, Inc. v. Friedman, 20 Ariz.App.
Marriott Corp. v. Industrial Commission 750 P.2d 17 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Marriott Corp. v. Industrial Commission 750 P.2d 17 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Haynes v. Haynes 713 P.2d 1249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Haynes v. Haynes 713 P.2d 1249 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
this court held that A.R.S.