Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Compton v. National Metals Company, 459 P.2d 93.

29 citing documents.

Tilley v. Delci 204 P.3d 1082 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Tilley v. Delci 204 P.3d 1082 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
The “affidavit of an attorney is insufficient under Rule 56(e), except where the facts set out are based upon his personal knowledge.”
Orme School v. Reeves 802 P.2d 1000 Ariz. 1990
Orme School v. Reeves 802 P.2d 1000 Ariz. 1990
See, , (summary judgment appropriate only where there is no “substantial evidence” in opposition, i.e., the tendered evidence is too incredible to be accepted by reasonable minds, or even if true, it is without legal probative force); see also Bouma & Parker, Summary Judgment in Arizona: A Call for a
Hill-Shafer Partnership v. Chilson Family Trust 799 P.2d 810 Ariz. 1990
Hill-Shafer Partnership v. Chilson Family Trust 799 P.2d 810 Ariz. 1990
see also Barnes v. Arden Mayfair, Inc., 759 F.2d 676, 680-81 (9th Cir.1985).
Markowitz v. Arizona Parks Board 705 P.2d 937 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
First Nat. Bank of Arizona v. Dupree 665 P.2d 1018 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
First Nat. Bank of Arizona v. Dupree 665 P.2d 1018 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Biondo v. General Motors Corporation, 5 Ariz.App.
Schuldes v. National Surety Corporation 557 P.2d 543 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Schuldes v. National Surety Corporation 557 P.2d 543 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Bennett v. Estate of Baker 557 P.2d 195 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Bennett v. Estate of Baker 557 P.2d 195 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Whipple v. SHAMROCK FOODS COMPANY 549 P.2d 217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Whipple v. SHAMROCK FOODS COMPANY 549 P.2d 217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Gillard v. Estrella Dells I Improvement District 541 P.2d 932 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Gillard v. Estrella Dells I Improvement District 541 P.2d 932 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
MacK v. Coker 523 P.2d 1342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
MacK v. Coker 523 P.2d 1342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Siner v. Stewart, 9 Ariz.App.
George v. Fox West Coast Theatres 519 P.2d 185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
George v. Fox West Coast Theatres 519 P.2d 185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Walker v. Montgomery Ward & Company, Inc. 511 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Walker v. Montgomery Ward & Company, Inc. 511 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Moore v. Southwestern Sash & Door Co.
Williams v. Campbell 510 P.2d 766 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Williams v. Campbell 510 P.2d 766 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Van Waters & Rogers, Inc. v. Interchange Resources, Inc. 484 P.2d 26 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Van Waters & Rogers, Inc. v. Interchange Resources, Inc. 484 P.2d 26 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Disregarding for the moment that such conclusions of fact or law are insufficient to properly raise a defense for the purposes of Rule 56, 16 A.R.S., , , Mr. Carl Priola’s (Paving’s President) affidavit cannot be read in the manner Van Waters contends.
Moore v. Maricopa County 466 P.2d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Moore v. Maricopa County 466 P.2d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970